PDA

View Full Version : From Baseball America RE: Oakland vs. Sox directions


Pilgrim
01-04-2008, 09:04 AM
Oakland definitely is in rebuilding mode, having shipped former ace Dan Haren to the Diamondbacks (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/news/265350.html) for six players in December. Perhaps the White Sox should be doing the same. They won just 72 games last year and have an aging team. Swisher is talented and inexpensive, but this deal further weakens an already deteriorating farm system. Gonzalez (No. 1), de los Santos (No. 2) and Sweeney (No. 6) all factored prominently on our White Sox Top 30 Prospects list in the 2008 Prospect Handbook (http://www.baseballamerica.com/store/store.cgi?browse=cat_books).

Thoughts?

spawn
01-04-2008, 09:10 AM
I'm confused...If our farm system sucks as bad as everyone says it does, then what do the rankings within the farm system really mean? It means they are the cream of the crop of, as this writer so astutely points out, a deteriorating system? I'm really getting tired of seeing that. Instead of showing how they rank in the Sox farm system, how about showing us where they rank in the overall picture.

btrain929
01-04-2008, 09:26 AM
It's not like we've traded prospects for 35 year olds in their contract year. We've traded our prospects for other younger players that are a lot further along in their development and MLB ready. Quentin is 25 and Swisher is a potential all-start at 27. So instead of a pitcher coming up to help the MLB team, we have other young guys helping us at the MLB level. I'm fine with these kind of moves. If we had traded Gio and DLS for Orlando Cabrera (contract year, no guarantee he'll come back), that would have made me mad. But a guy like Swisher, with his skill set and contract, i'm ok with. So we went from 29th to 30th in farm systems. Damn.

voodoochile
01-04-2008, 09:50 AM
It's not like we've traded prospects for 35 year olds in their contract year. We've traded our prospects for other younger players that are a lot further along in their development and MLB ready. Quentin is 25 and Swisher is a potential all-start at 27. So instead of a pitcher coming up to help the MLB team, we have other young guys helping us at the MLB level. I'm fine with these kind of moves. If we had traded Gio and DLS for Orlando Cabrera (contract year, no guarantee he'll come back), that would have made me mad. But a guy like Swisher, with his skill set and contract, i'm ok with. So we went from 29th to 30th in farm systems. Damn.

Thank you...

I'm curious as to why Rameriz, Quentin, Richar, Owens, Floyd and even Fields and Danks aren't considered prospects, but if they are, where do they rank?

Just because a guy caught a few months with the big league club removes him from prospect status?

Also, if you have 7 guys in their first or second year in the majors who all could develop into solid players, does it really matter how crappy your minor league system is at the moment?

balke
01-04-2008, 09:55 AM
I like major leaguers more than minor leaguers. I would say most of the time they are better at baseball.

Brian Anderson was a better hitter than Sweeney in the minors. He's still here, noone's mentioning that. The only loss I see right now is Gio, because he's almost ready to play. He looks like the real deal. De Los Santos I haven't watched pitch. I'm sure he's good, but I'm also sure he wasn't going to be pitching next season. Who knows when he'll be pitching?

Poreda and Broadway are still in the system, and Broadway looked great when he came up last year. Poreda has the makings of being a solid pitcher. I like the deal. Swisher with that long of a contract either helps the Sox unload other players if they are bad, or they can re-trade him and get good prospects back. Good move for the Sox.

russ99
01-04-2008, 10:04 AM
What I don't understand is the media and some of these so-called experts clamoring for the Sox to tear down and rebuild, A's/Marlins style.

First of all, there's no way the Sox can come close to the level of attendence they've had the last few years if they do that. We're a big market team, and there's no excuse for not having a top 2/3rds payroll. The fanbase simply will not stand for a Royals or D-Rays like team and the 90-100 losses that go with it.

Secondly, the Sox have a solid core of Thome, Konerko, Dye, Buehrle, Vazquez, Jenks, and they're a lot closer to contention than people think. Cutting away the dead weight and bringing in more talented players like Kenny has done this offseason is a good first step.

I liken this offseason to the kinds of things the Braves have been doing the last 10 years. Reload, not rebuild.

veeter
01-04-2008, 10:37 AM
All these posts are so right on. ******* Rogers never writes articles about prospects Kenny trades, that never pan out. Which is most of them. Here's my question, what the hell is Billy Beane doing? I mean, just a few years ago Haren was one of the top prospects he received for Mulder. Now Haren becomes great and he trades him for more prospects. Talk about, prospects-R-us. How would it feel to be a fan of the A's. "Dad, I really like this new, good, young player!" "Well son, don't get too attached, because he'll be gone as soon as he gets REALLY good." Beane is good at what he does. Continually trading for good prospects, then trading THEM for more good prospects. I just don't get his, or the A's purpose.

btrain929
01-04-2008, 10:37 AM
Thank you...

I'm curious as to why Rameriz, Quentin, Richar, Owens, Floyd and even Fields and Danks aren't considered prospects, but if they are, where do they rank?

Just because a guy caught a few months with the big league club removes him from prospect status?

Also, if you have 7 guys in their first or second year in the majors who all could develop into solid players, does it really matter how crappy your minor league system is at the moment?

Nope, not to me. Because the guys you have up at the majors, if they produce (which a lot of the guys we have on our team have done) will be here for a minimum of 3-4 years before any type of significant payday and we won't need prospects to fill those positions for a long time. I do agree that in the next year or two, we will be seeing a lot of new faces as far as pitching is concerned, minors and majors. Whether that happens thru trades, good drafting (what's that?), or FA signings, '09 and '10 should be an interesting rotation to look at.

spawn
01-04-2008, 10:48 AM
All these posts are so right on. ******* Rogers never writes articles about prospects Kenny trades, that never pan out. Which is most of them. Here's my question, what the hell is Billy Beane doing? I mean, just a few years ago Haren was one of the top prospects he received for Mulder. Now Haren becomes great and he trades him for more prospects. Talk about, prospects-R-us. How would it feel to be a fan of the A's. "Dad, I really like this new, good, young player!" "Well son, don't get too attached, because he'll be gone as soon as he gets REALLY good." Beane is good at what he does. Continually trading for good prospects, then trading THEM for more good prospects. I just don't get his, or the A's purpose.
This is why it bothers me whenever people proclaim how great a GM Billy Beane is. He has a great eye for talent. There is no denying that. But he seems enamored with acquiring good prospects, getting them to the majors to show their capabilities, and then trading them for more prospects. I've asked this before: if billy Beane is such a great GM, why hasn't any teams he's put together won any Championships? I know there are those that will say "well, the A's are always in contention. They've made the playoffs x amount of times". That's great. That's wonderful. It must suck though to realize your team is only built to make it into the playoffs, but go no further.

paciorek1983
01-04-2008, 10:52 AM
This is why it bothers me whenever people proclaim how great a GM Billy Beane is. He has a great eye for talent. There is no denying that. But he seems enamored with acquiring good prospects, getting them to the majors to show their capabilities, and then trade them for more prospects. I've asked this before: if billy Beane is such a great GM, why hasn't any teams he's put together won any Championships? I know their are those that will say "well, the A's are always in contention. They've made the playoffs x amount of times". That's great. That's wonderful. It must suck though to realize your team is only built to make it into the playoffs, but go no further.



Exactly!!:gulp:

Oblong
01-04-2008, 10:55 AM
It must suck though to realize your team is only built to make it into the playoffs, but go no further.

What's the difference between a team built to make the playoffs and one that goes no further? This is baseball, not hockey or basketball where every team that doesn't suck makes the playoffs, or even football where every slightly better than mediocre team makes the playoffs.

chisox77
01-04-2008, 11:08 AM
It seems to me that KW has done a pretty good job of getting the most out of deals where he has traded prospects for MLB ready players. As stated before, I love this deal for Nick Swisher. I see nothing but good things for the White Sox, with a young, yet experienced switch hitter with power, a good eye, and a great attitude.

This may turn out to be a better offseason than what is widely perceived at the moment.


:cool:

spawn
01-04-2008, 11:08 AM
What's the difference between a team built to make the playoffs and one that goes no further?
:?:

I'll be a little clearer: The Billy Beane A's are consistently in contention to win the West. When have they ever been considered favorites to win it all? That's what I don't understand about the "genius" of Billy Beane. If as a fan you're content with your team just getting to the playoffs but advancing no further, then he's a great GM, quite possibly the best ever.

Oblong
01-04-2008, 12:12 PM
Yes, I know the history of what the A's have done the last 7 or 8 years. But how does a GM in baseball build a team to "just get there" year in and year out? You have to be pretty darn good, and lucky, to make the playoffs in baseball. I don't see the difference in a team good enough to make the playoffs and a team good enough to win in the playoffs.

balke
01-04-2008, 12:19 PM
Yes, I know the history of what the A's have done the last 7 or 8 years. But how does a GM in baseball build a team to "just get there" year in and year out? You have to be pretty darn good, and lucky, to make the playoffs in baseball. I don't see the difference in a team good enough to make the playoffs and a team good enough to win in the playoffs.

Ask Cleveland fans that one. Do you think it would kill the Indians to go out and sign 1 all-star free agent to help the club they've built? Do they really need to keep the team so cheap? Give Sabathia a complimentary pitching stud, or would it kill them to upgrade the power in the outfield a little?

Corlose 15
01-04-2008, 12:19 PM
Here is what I don't get about the Sox mortgaging the farm in order to get Swisher.

They control Swisher for 5 years and non of the players that they traded him would have made an impact this year, except for maybe Gonzalez as a mid season callup. So, Sweeney wouldn't have played this year and in this trade you've essentially replaced him with Swisher, which is an upgrade.

DLS wouldn't have been ready for 3 years or so and whose to say that they don't have someone to replace him by the time that he's ready to make the step to the majors. The kid was in A ball last year.

Not to mention the Sox draft 8th this summer and that could go a long way in replenishing the farm, and the fact that they have a lot of young players on the big club already and the "dire" circumstances of the farm system aren't as important.

EndemicSox
01-04-2008, 12:21 PM
Yes, I know the history of what the A's have done the last 7 or 8 years. But how does a GM in baseball build a team to "just get there" year in and year out? You have to be pretty darn good, and lucky, to make the playoffs in baseball. I don't see the difference in a team good enough to make the playoffs and a team good enough to win in the playoffs.

Outside of the ridiculous payrolls in NY and Boston, there isn't a difference. If you make the playoffs, you can win the World Series if the breaks go the right way. The A's teams of the early 2000's were plenty good enough to win a title, they just didn't get the breaks come October.

Unregistered
01-04-2008, 12:23 PM
:?:

I'll be a little clearer: The Billy Beane A's are consistently in contention to win the West. When have they ever been considered favorites to win it all? That's what I don't understand about the "genius" of Billy Beane. If as a fan you're content with your team just getting to the playoffs but advancing no further, then he's a great GM, quite possibly the best ever.

Meanwhile KW has gotten to the playoffs once in 7 years. But hey, everything went right in '05 and we won it all, so that's all that matters, right?

Once you're in the playoffs, all sorts of crazy things can happen. A little luck or a hot team can change everything. It's GETTING to the playoffs (and doing it consistantly) that a GM really shows what he's made of. Say what you want about Beane being overrated, but you can't just ignore his teams constantly getting to the playoffs because ESPN hasn't ever called the A's "favorites to win it all" or because his teams never put together that perfect postseason.

As for your last sentence, you can basically say the same thing about KW, except it sounds a little worse: "If as a fan you're content to go to the playoffs once a decade, then yeah, Ken Williams is a great GM."

spawn
01-04-2008, 12:28 PM
As for your last sentence, you can basically say the same thing about KW, except it sounds a little worse: "If as a fan you're content to go to the playoffs and win a World Series once a decade, then yeah, Ken Williams is a great GM."
Fixed that for ya. :wink:

johnr1note
01-04-2008, 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1762845#post1762845)
As for your last sentence, you can basically say the same thing about KW, except it sounds a little worse: "If as a fan you're content to go to the playoffs and win a World Series once a decade, then yeah, Ken Williams is a great GM."

Fixed that for ya. :wink:

Thank you. And you know what else? KW did something that no other GM has done for a Chicago baseball team for what is now 177 baseball seasons (counting both sides of town) -- won a world series! This is not just "once a decade" No Chicago team has done it twice in 177 tries. That does deserve some recognition.

And I want a list of all the prospects KW has traded away that have had an impact that would require us to go back and look and say "maybe we shouldn't have made that deal." Hindsight being 20/20, you can maybe find one or two players that have made impacts, but when you consider what that player brought us in the trade, I'll bet at worst it would be objectively considered a wash.

KW is no fool -- even though Billy Beane makes him look like one in "Moneyball." The "Moneyball" theory has yet to win a World Series (and don't try and throw Theo Epstein at me -- that ain't Billy Beane's theories in action -- All Theo is, is a BP propeller-head with George Steinbrenner's checkbook.)

Jerome
01-04-2008, 03:50 PM
A's don't have the payroll to be considered favorites to win it all.

Anyways, I'm not pleased with the dismal state of the farm system BUT it is a consolation that Richar, Danks, Fields, Swisher etc. and other regulars are so young.

getonbckthr
01-04-2008, 04:16 PM
Sweeney is a bust. We should be able to replace one of the pitchers with our top 10 pick. Is there any team better at hyping bad, low ceiling prospects than the White Sox?

batmanZoSo
01-04-2008, 04:18 PM
Oakland definitely is in rebuilding mode, having shipped former ace Dan Haren to the Diamondbacks (http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/majors/news/265350.html) for six players in December. Perhaps the White Sox should be doing the same. They won just 72 games last year and have an aging team. Swisher is talented and inexpensive, but this deal further weakens an already deteriorating farm system. Gonzalez (No. 1), de los Santos (No. 2) and Sweeney (No. 6) all factored prominently on our White Sox Top 30 Prospects list in the 2008 Prospect Handbook (http://www.baseballamerica.com/store/store.cgi?browse=cat_books).

Thoughts?

Agreed. :dunno:

batmanZoSo
01-04-2008, 04:20 PM
I'm confused...If our farm system sucks as bad as everyone says it does, then what do the rankings within the farm system really mean? It means they are the cream of the crop of, as this writer so astutely points out, a deteriorating system? I'm really getting tired of seeing that. Instead of showing how they rank in the Sox farm system, how about showing us where they rank in the overall picture.

Because Gio is ranked in the top 30? I wanna say in all of baseball. DLS will be there soon enough barring injury.

Sweeney is Jeremy Reed II in my opinion.

Hitmenof77
01-04-2008, 04:23 PM
Thank you...

I'm curious as to why Rameriz, Quentin, Richar, Owens, Floyd and even Fields and Danks aren't considered prospects, but if they are, where do they rank?

Just because a guy caught a few months with the big league club removes him from prospect status?

Also, if you have 7 guys in their first or second year in the majors who all could develop into solid players, does it really matter how crappy your minor league system is at the moment?

To be considered a prospect according to BA, a player must meet ROY requirements. I don't believe all the players you named are eligible for ROY.

nodiggity59
01-04-2008, 04:28 PM
I disagree with BA.

Keeping Gio and DLS suddenly gives us a brighter future? Brighter than having 5 years of Swisher?

That's right, no. It doesn't. Let's face it, the most realistic scenario given what usually happens with prospects is that one of them is a league average starter and one is a wash out / middle reliever.

Can DLS be a #1 and Gio a #2? Sure, but I wouldn't bet my house on it. Would you?

KW won't bet the Sox on it, not as long as there is a talented and MLB PROVEN, moderately priced, in his prime player to be had.

Unregistered
01-04-2008, 04:28 PM
Fixed that for ya. :wink:

Thank you. And you know what else? KW did something that no other GM has done for a Chicago baseball team for what is now 177 baseball seasons (counting both sides of town) -- won a world series! This is not just "once a decade" No Chicago team has done it twice in 177 tries. That does deserve some recognition.

KW is no fool -- even though Billy Beane makes him look like one in "Moneyball." The "Moneyball" theory has yet to win a World Series (and don't try and throw Theo Epstein at me -- that ain't Billy Beane's theories in action -- All Theo is, is a BP propeller-head with George Steinbrenner's checkbook.)

Right, and has been mentioned, KW caught lightening in a bottle and his team (and especially his starting pitching) got hot at exactly the right moment. That's why GETTING to the playoffs often has a lot more to do with how good a GM is than the GM who got lucky and had what could be considered a "fluky" season in retrospect (especially considering the Sox haven't made the playoffs since winning the World Series with essentially the same team the year after. A LOT of things went right during that season.) KW will even tell you himself he didn't see the dominance in 2005 coming.

Obviously winning championships is your goal, which is why the guy who puts his team in position to get to the playoffs year in and year out is the guy who is doing the better job. Not the guy who got his team to the playoffs (and granted, won a world series) once in his 8-year-career as a GM.

FarWestChicago
01-04-2008, 07:27 PM
Obviously winning championships is your goal, which is why the guy who puts his team in position to get to the playoffs year in and year out is the guy who is doing the better job. Not the guy who got his team to the playoffs (and granted, won a world series) once in his 8-year-career as a GM.You can have all the A's playoff chokes you want. I'll take 2005. :moonwalk:

:fobbgod:

I am the greatest GM in the history of sports! Just ask me!

Unregistered
01-04-2008, 07:44 PM
You can have all the A's playoff chokes you want. I'll take 2005. :moonwalk:


Hey, I'm not complaining about the Championship in '05. :bandance::gulp::bandance:

I'm just not convinced it makes KW a genius and BB a worthless GM.

FarWestChicago
01-04-2008, 07:47 PM
Hey, I'm not complaining about the Championship in '05. :bandance::gulp::bandance:

I'm just not convinced it makes KW a genius and BB a worthless GM.It doesn't matter. KW won, BB didn't (and won't for a long time). Why sweat it? It's basically an irrelevant point. That's what happens when you win. :D:

Walkman
01-04-2008, 07:59 PM
Right, and has been mentioned, KW caught lightening in a bottle and his team (and especially his starting pitching) got hot at exactly the right moment. That's why GETTING to the playoffs often has a lot more to do with how good a GM is than the GM who got lucky and had what could be considered a "fluky" season in retrospect (especially considering the Sox haven't made the playoffs since winning the World Series with essentially the same team the year after. A LOT of things went right during that season.) KW will even tell you himself he didn't see the dominance in 2005 coming.

Obviously winning championships is your goal, which is why the guy who puts his team in position to get to the playoffs year in and year out is the guy who is doing the better job. Not the guy who got his team to the playoffs (and granted, won a world series) once in his 8-year-career as a GM.

Under this logic, in '06 the Sox won 90 games (in baseball's best division) but didn't make the playoffs because KW sucks; the A's win 93 games and make the playoffs because BB is so great.

Sorry, but world championships - not playoff appearances -are cherished for a lifetime, and going for it should be what it's all about. Counting playoff appearances is for Cubs fans.

Also, I don't know how any of you hold KW accountable for '01 and '02.

SBSoxFan
01-04-2008, 09:14 PM
Right, and has been mentioned, KW caught lightening in a bottle and his team (and especially his starting pitching) got hot at exactly the right moment.

What moment was that exactly? The 2005 team hit the ground running, and never looked back. Even in August and Early September they played ok. They put together about as good a 7 month run as a team can have. This wasn't like last year's Rockies or the A's who always start slowly. Not only have the A's never won the World Series under Bean, but they've never put together a solidly consistent regular seen, which, to me, is a statistical anomaly in itself!

voodoochile
01-04-2008, 10:33 PM
To be considered a prospect according to BA, a player must meet ROY requirements. I don't believe all the players you named are eligible for ROY.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess every line has to be drawn somewhere and that's a good place for it.

I stand by my point that having that many young players who have already shown signs of being productive at the major league level is a good thing and actually better than having a ton of "great prospects" in the minor league system.

johnr1note
01-04-2008, 10:39 PM
Under this logic, in '06 the Sox won 90 games (in baseball's best division) but didn't make the playoffs because KW sucks; the A's win 93 games and make the playoffs because BB is so great.

Sorry, but world championships - not playoff appearances -are cherished for a lifetime, and going for it should be what it's all about. Counting playoff appearances is for Cubs fans.

Also, I don't know how any of you hold KW accountable for '01 and '02.

What about the Braves? All those division titles in the 90s, and how many world titles do they have? Guess what? The same as the White Sox!

Cleveland had the hottest team going for years. 7 playoff appearances in the last 15 years. And how many World Series do they have?

The Astros have 6 playoff appearances in the last 10 years. And how many pennants and World Series do they have?

You can go on and on. I'll tell you what -- if you believe the 2005 White Sox were a fluke, that's fine. I will give Kenny a little bit of slack and wait and see until opening day whether he can "build" a better pitching staff or not.

Oblong
01-05-2008, 08:18 AM
What about the Braves? All those division titles in the 90s, and how many world titles do they have? Guess what? The same as the White Sox!

Cleveland had the hottest team going for years. 7 playoff appearances in the last 15 years. And how many World Series do they have?

The Astros have 6 playoff appearances in the last 10 years. And how many pennants and World Series do they have?

You can go on and on. I'll tell you what -- if you believe the 2005 White Sox were a fluke, that's fine. I will give Kenny a little bit of slack and wait and see until opening day whether he can "build" a better pitching staff or not.

Going forward, as a fan, would you rather have your GM be able to build a team that can do what the Astros, Braves, and Indians did in terms of making the playoffs or have the success that Kenny Williams had in getting his team to the playoffs. Would you be willing to take that chance? Obviously looking back I'd take the title. But if you said "You're team will make the playoffs once in the next 5 years with a 75% chance of winning the whole thing, or make the playoffs 4 times in 7 years with a 40% chance each year, I'll take the 4 in 7 every time" Change the numbers as you wish but the concept remains the same.

I do not think GM's have much say in what happens once the playoffs start. Yes I know that's what Beane was quoted as saying in Moneyball but just because he said it doesn't mean he's wrong. It was true before Beane was even born. You can go back to those world series and playoff logs to see how close those games involving Atlanta and Cleveland really were. Is it John Schuelerholz's fault that Lonnie Smith didn't pay attention on the basepaths in the 8th inning of game 7 in 1991? Their 4 losses to Toronto in 1992 were by a combined 4 runs. A GM is supposed to build to overcome that? How? Is it John Hart's fault that Jose Mesa blew game 7 in 1997? Even though 2005 was a sweep, all 4 games were close. Anything can happen in a 7 game series. At that point the GM's work is done. If a GM gets his team there then he did his job. I know in Boston and NY they don't feel that way but it's wrong thinking. If Beckett and the Sox choked against Colorado I would not hold it against Theo. This isn't hockey where you go out and get the superstar goalie to carry you. Starters go once every few days, hitters are just one of nine. You need the ability to win a marathon season as well as the 100 yard dash of the playoffs.

FarWestChicago
01-05-2008, 08:30 AM
Going forward, as a fan...There's no reason to go forward. We already won. :happyguy:

OK, you're right. Going forward it would be nice if the team wasn't atrocious. :smile:

Tragg
01-05-2008, 09:15 AM
Going forward, as a fan, would you rather have your GM be able to build a team that can do what the Astros, Braves, and Indians did in terms of making the playoffs or have the success that Kenny Williams had in getting his team to the playoffs.
The White Sox make post season about once per decade (twice from 91-00; but none in the 1960s or 1970s). Really fortunate to have won the WS in the one appearance this decade. On the other hand, the Sox probably had the 2nd to best team in 1993 and 1983.
There's no reason not to have a team that's consistently competitive given the resources.
While the Sox had good fortune in winning the WS in its only playoff appearance of the decade, the Sox have had the misfortune of several 85+ win teams that didn't make the playoffs. Using Houston as an example, they've slinked into the playoffs several times with marginal records. No such luck for the Sox. Our 90 win teams don't make the playoffs.

johnr1note
01-05-2008, 09:15 AM
Going forward, as a fan, would you rather have your GM be able to build a team that can do what the Astros, Braves, and Indians did in terms of making the playoffs or have the success that Kenny Williams had in getting his team to the playoffs. Would you be willing to take that chance? Obviously looking back I'd take the title. But if you said "You're team will make the playoffs once in the next 5 years with a 75% chance of winning the whole thing, or make the playoffs 4 times in 7 years with a 40% chance each year, I'll take the 4 in 7 every time" Change the numbers as you wish but the concept remains the same.

I do not think GM's have much say in what happens once the playoffs start. Yes I know that's what Beane was quoted as saying in Moneyball but just because he said it doesn't mean he's wrong. It was true before Beane was even born. You can go back to those world series and playoff logs to see how close those games involving Atlanta and Cleveland really were. Is it John Schuelerholz's fault that Lonnie Smith didn't pay attention on the basepaths in the 8th inning of game 7 in 1991? Their 4 losses to Toronto in 1992 were by a combined 4 runs. A GM is supposed to build to overcome that? How? Is it John Hart's fault that Jose Mesa blew game 7 in 1997? Even though 2005 was a sweep, all 4 games were close. Anything can happen in a 7 game series. At that point the GM's work is done. If a GM gets his team there then he did his job. I know in Boston and NY they don't feel that way but it's wrong thinking. If Beckett and the Sox choked against Colorado I would not hold it against Theo. This isn't hockey where you go out and get the superstar goalie to carry you. Starters go once every few days, hitters are just one of nine. You need the ability to win a marathon season as well as the 100 yard dash of the playoffs.


You yourself admit "looking back, I'll take the title." That says it all.

But being competitive and falling short doesn't cut it. For the first 5 or 6 years of the 90s, the Sox had one of the best overall regular season records, with one division title to show for it. And looking back on post season history and posing a bunch of "What ifs," think if Tito Landrum doesn't hit the home run in 83, and we win that game, and Hoyt shuts down the Orioles in game 5, and the 83 Sox win the Series? Or if the 93 playoffs turned out different? Imagine the history of baseball in this town. But we didn't win. Because we didn't have a good enough team.

I think your premise is flawed, because it presumes a good but not great team has a chance to win it all if they can just make the postseason. While its true that sometimes the best team in the playoffs doesn't win it all, I think in today's high pressure, internationally advertised/broadcast and microscopically analyzed playoff structure, a good but not team cannot sustain themselves through the weight of 3 postseason series. That is why the Braves, Indians and Astros teams I cited didn't win. Its why the Cubs didn't win last year.

Well, what of the wild card teams that have won it all? What about the 2006 Cardinals. The Marlins/Diamondbacks/Angels/Red Sox teams that won it all as wild cards may have not been the best over the entire season, but they were still great teams-- often the 2nd best overall record in their league. And they proved it by winning the series. The 06 Cards were a team that had won over 100 games in 2005, and had been decimated by injuries during the regular season. The team that won it all in the post season was more like that 100 win team in 05.

Don't get me wrong -- the White Sox need to retool the farm system, and I believe with the new farm director we're starting to move in that direction. But I don't think the sign of a great GM is a string of playoff appearances. Pennants and World Series titles are all that matter. There is a reason why they don't give out trophies for division titles or wild card teams. They really don't mean much.

dickallen15
01-05-2008, 09:37 AM
You yourself admit "looking back, I'll take the title." That says it all.

But being competitive and falling short doesn't cut it. For the first 5 or 6 years of the 90s, the Sox had one of the best overall regular season records, with one division title to show for it. And looking back on post season history and posing a bunch of "What ifs," think if Tito Landrum doesn't hit the home run in 83, and we win that game, and Hoyt shuts down the Orioles in game 5, and the 83 Sox win the Series? Or if the 93 playoffs turned out different? Imagine the history of baseball in this town. But we didn't win. Because we didn't have a good enough team.

I think your premise is flawed, because it presumes a good but not great team has a chance to win it all if they can just make the postseason. While its true that sometimes the best team in the playoffs doesn't win it all, I think in today's high pressure, internationally advertised/broadcast and microscopically analyzed playoff structure, a good but not team cannot sustain themselves through the weight of 3 postseason series. That is why the Braves, Indians and Astros teams I cited didn't win. Its why the Cubs didn't win last year.

Well, what of the wild card teams that have won it all? What about the 2006 Cardinals. The Marlins/Diamondbacks/Angels/Red Sox teams that won it all as wild cards may have not been the best over the entire season, but they were still great teams-- often the 2nd best overall record in their league. And they proved it by winning the series. The 06 Cards were a team that had won over 100 games in 2005, and had been decimated by injuries during the regular season. The team that won it all in the post season was more like that 100 win team in 05.

Don't get me wrong -- the White Sox need to retool the farm system, and I believe with the new farm director we're starting to move in that direction. But I don't think the sign of a great GM is a string of playoff appearances. Pennants and World Series titles are all that matter. There is a reason why they don't give out trophies for division titles or wild card teams. They really don't mean much.
I question anyone who says the 2006 Cardinals, a team that would have easily lost 90 games if it were in the AL, was a great team. They won 83 games in a horrible division in a horrible league. The playoffs ARE a crapshoot. The White Sox were 11-1 in the 2005 postseason. However, if Graffinino doesn't let a routine grounder go through his legs, if El Duque doesn't pitch to 3 batters like he pitched when he was in his prime, but pitched to them like he pitched the second half of 2005, its very possible the White Sox never make it through the first round. When you win the division you actually do get a little scratch. Using your theory, the Florida Marlins fans have nothing to complain about. They have 2 WS titles. That park should be filled to the brim every night.

Oblong
01-05-2008, 09:40 AM
You yourself admit "looking back, I'll take the title." That says it all.

But being competitive and falling short doesn't cut it. For the first 5 or 6 years of the 90s, the Sox had one of the best overall regular season records, with one division title to show for it. And looking back on post season history and posing a bunch of "What ifs," think if Tito Landrum doesn't hit the home run in 83, and we win that game, and Hoyt shuts down the Orioles in game 5, and the 83 Sox win the Series? Or if the 93 playoffs turned out different? Imagine the history of baseball in this town. But we didn't win. Because we didn't have a good enough team.

I think your premise is flawed, because it presumes a good but not great team has a chance to win it all if they can just make the postseason. While its true that sometimes the best team in the playoffs doesn't win it all, I think in today's high pressure, internationally advertised/broadcast and microscopically analyzed playoff structure, a good but not team cannot sustain themselves through the weight of 3 postseason series. That is why the Braves, Indians and Astros teams I cited didn't win. Its why the Cubs didn't win last year.

Well, what of the wild card teams that have won it all? What about the 2006 Cardinals. The Marlins/Diamondbacks/Angels/Red Sox teams that won it all as wild cards may have not been the best over the entire season, but they were still great teams-- often the 2nd best overall record in their league. And they proved it by winning the series. The 06 Cards were a team that had won over 100 games in 2005, and had been decimated by injuries during the regular season. The team that won it all in the post season was more like that 100 win team in 05.

Don't get me wrong -- the White Sox need to retool the farm system, and I believe with the new farm director we're starting to move in that direction. But I don't think the sign of a great GM is a string of playoff appearances. Pennants and World Series titles are all that matter. There is a reason why they don't give out trophies for division titles or wild card teams. They really don't mean much.

Nobody is saying that. What I'm talking about is judging the work of a GM. I think it's short sighted to put so much emphasis on what happens in the playoffs. Especially with a team that makes it to the world series. Forget the A's for a moment because their situation is unique in that they play in a 4 team division that includes the Texas Rangers so really, their chances of making the playoffs are already at 30%. This holds true for the other 29 teams.

The GM of the Angels doesn't deserve any more credit for his team winning it all in 2002 vs if they lost it all in 2002. The difference in winning/losing that series was 6 runs scored in the 7th and 8th inning. The 2005 WS turned in a big way on Podsednik's HR in game 2. But seriously, if he could have done that then anybody on either team could have done that. Do you think when Kenny made the trade he thought "I think this guy can hit a big HR in the playoffs, let's get him"? A GM can't plan for that stuff.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-05-2008, 11:07 AM
In most businesses, growth masks a host of ills. In baseball, winning championships does the same thing.

Kenny Williams has won; Billy Beane hasn't won ****. Based on this latest trade Beane isn't planning to win **** for a long time either.

Go ahead and call Beane a genius. If you wait 88 years for your championship you can't say you didn't have it coming.
:cool:

SoxandtheCityTee
01-05-2008, 11:22 AM
Coppock & Levine had Jim Callis on their Hot Stove Game Day about an hour ago. Freely summarized:

Callis thinks KW has always been aggressive this way -- not afraid to trade prospects to help the team now -- and he, Callis, doesn't necessarily credit the POV in Rogers's Friday article (parts of which were quoted by Coppock). Levine asks, how do you deal with a reporter like Rogers when he seems to be taking things personally? [Hmmmm.] Callis notes that Rogers writes for BA but that's more news/info, while Rogers's column is opinion.

Levine notes that to KW's credit, very few of the prospects traded away have come back to haunt him; Callis agrees; Chris Young is looking like a future superstar, but Callis liked the Javy trade at the time, which is the way you have to look at these things.

Coppock asks how the Sox farm system now rates vs. the Cubs:rolleyes: ; Callis says the Cubs are middle of the pack and the Sox are now at the bottom; possibly only the Astros have a worse farm system now. Previous rankings of Gio, Faustino and Sweeney are chuckled over -- BA has to rewrite its upcoming article because of the Swisher trade.

In Callis's opinion the Sox now have no prospects in the top 60 now, yea verily he doubts they have any in the top 100. Egbert? asks Levine. Callis essentially replies meh; he hasn't shown yet he can throw his best pitch(es?) consistently. End of interview.

johnr1note
01-05-2008, 03:15 PM
Nobody is saying that. What I'm talking about is judging the work of a GM. I think it's short sighted to put so much emphasis on what happens in the playoffs. Especially with a team that makes it to the world series. Forget the A's for a moment because their situation is unique in that they play in a 4 team division that includes the Texas Rangers so really, their chances of making the playoffs are already at 30%. This holds true for the other 29 teams.

The GM of the Angels doesn't deserve any more credit for his team winning it all in 2002 vs if they lost it all in 2002. The difference in winning/losing that series was 6 runs scored in the 7th and 8th inning. The 2005 WS turned in a big way on Podsednik's HR in game 2. But seriously, if he could have done that then anybody on either team could have done that. Do you think when Kenny made the trade he thought "I think this guy can hit a big HR in the playoffs, let's get him"? A GM can't plan for that stuff.

Maybe we're really saying similar things. My point is, a team that wins a division or wild card but doesn't make it to the World Series isn't a great team. What I perceived you to be saying is you'd rather have a team that is competitive year in and year out, but only has a 40% shot at advancing in the playoffs. Somehow that's the sign of a better GM. You protest and say that Billy Beane's A's are different, but you've just described Billy Beane's A's.

You are right -- a lot can happen in a short series. But the teams that win it all, by and large, are built for the long haul. The 2002 Angels could have lost the world series, but they won 99 regular season games to win the wild card (finishing behind the A's, ironically). They handled the Yankees (best team in the league) in the ALDS 3-1 -- no games were really very close, and then they shut down the Twins in the ALCS 4-1. Yes, the world series was close, and, as you say, the GM couldn't plan for the intricacies of the inning by inning situations. But here's the point -- the Angels were there because of the team their GM put together, and were equipped to win get ahead in the 6th game when the chips were down by their GM. Can the GM claim credit for the World Series? For a team that had the solid pitching, defense and potent offense the 2002 Angels had, I'd say yes. He put them in position to win.

KW has accomplished that -- the 2005 Sox weren't just "lightening in a bottle" or a fluke. That team was put together with a plan. Sure, things fell into place, and help came from a few unexpected places -- expectations were exceeded. But the season was successful primarily because of Williams.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-05-2008, 03:47 PM
....

KW has accomplished that -- the 2005 Sox weren't just "lightening in a bottle" or a fluke. That team was put together with a plan. Sure, things fell into place, and help came from a few unexpected places -- expectations were exceeded. But the season was successful primarily because of Williams.

Thank you for posting this bit of perspective. There are lots of posters who ought to re-read it.

The 2006 Bears winning 13 regular season games is a fluke. But the 2005 Sox winning 99 games in not a fluke. It's literally 7-times more victories!

Scott Podsednik having a career year in 2005 is "lightening in a bottle". But Scott Podsednik having a career year sometime is not "lightening in a bottle" anymore than it was "lightening in a bottle" that KW willingly paid the price of trading Carlos Lee to get him. By definition Podsednik has to have a career year sometime, and KW paid a steep price for his 507 lead-off at-bats!

Those attempting to write-off the '05 Sox as some sort of fluke are showing their extreme ignorance. It's precisely this sort of demented thinking that makes the Chicago Cubs "lovable" to America's most ignorant fans.

cws05champ
01-05-2008, 03:53 PM
I think the summary of this thread is, Beane isn't a genius like everyone makes him out to be....but he is a very good GM. To be able to do what he has done with the A's on a limited budget for years is phenomenal. However, people remember and cherish Championships...not playoff appearances(unless you are the Cubs), bottom line. Just because Beane writes a book and say Williams is a moron, it doesn't mean anything. KW just has a different approach and philosphy than Beane...he has to because of the expectations and before 2005, the Championship drought.

I think KW is a decent GM in some respects but that doesn't mean he doesn't need help from his other baseball people in areas of player evaluation and development. Beane is a great GM for talent evaluation and development but his teams have not been lucky enough, or constructed well enough to win in the postseason.

SoxandtheCityTee
01-05-2008, 04:16 PM
Scott Podsednik having a career year in 2005 is "lightening in a bottle". But Scott Podsednik having a career year sometime is not "lightening in a bottle" anymore than it was "lightening in a bottle" that KW willingly paid the price of trading Carlos Lee to get him. By definition Podsednik has to have a career year sometime, and KW paid a steep price for his 507 lead-off at-bats!

Well said. It seems to me that the knowledgeable people in baseball try to discern what the players are capable of; only a fool would claim that he can predict exactly when they will reach that expectation, or fail to admit that sometimes, whether because of injuries or for other reasons, they never do.

When it all comes together, you can thank your good luck, but there had to be an "it" to come together in the first place.

JNS
01-05-2008, 05:24 PM
It doesn't matter. KW won, BB didn't (and won't for a long time). Why sweat it? It's basically an irrelevant point. That's what happens when you win. :D:

Now that the Sox have one the series (in 05) why don't we just close down the team and go out of business. We won it once - nothing else to play for ever.

Build statues of KW and JR, those immortal heros and have a Sox day in July sometime and have those great memories and forget the rest.

Look - if you invoke the fact that the Sox won in 05 over and over and over and over as the answer to every criticism, what's the point of having a conversation?

You guys can have your memories. Pretty sad stuff - looking at one WS as the end all and be all of Sox baseball.

I prefer to look to the future, which is pretty bleak at the moment.

batmanZoSo
01-05-2008, 05:28 PM
Thank you for posting this bit of perspective. There are lots of posters who ought to re-read it.

The 2006 Bears winning 13 regular season games is a fluke. But the 2005 Sox winning 99 games in not a fluke. It's literally 7-times more victories!

Scott Podsednik having a career year in 2005 is "lightening in a bottle". But Scott Podsednik having a career year sometime is not "lightening in a bottle" anymore than it was "lightening in a bottle" that KW willingly paid the price of trading Carlos Lee to get him. By definition Podsednik has to have a career year sometime, and KW paid a steep price for his 507 lead-off at-bats!

Those attempting to write-off the '05 Sox as some sort of fluke are showing their extreme ignorance. It's precisely this sort of demented thinking that makes the Chicago Cubs "lovable" to America's most ignorant fans.

Getting rid of Lee was something that had to be done. Not because he wasn't a good hitter but because he wasn't great and we already had a few guys as good or better in the lineup. I'd wanted him gone and to get a good lead off man for a few years at that point.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-05-2008, 05:29 PM
I prefer to look to the future, which is pretty bleak at the moment.

For some people it's always bleak. Thankfully their number inside Sox Fandom has been on the wane since October 26, 2005.

For many people old habits die hard. The rest of us must live with them.

:wink:

FarWestChicago
01-05-2008, 06:34 PM
For some people it's always bleak. Thankfully their number inside Sox Fandom has been on the wane since October 26, 2005.

For many people old habits die hard. The rest of us must live with them.

:wink:You got that right.

delben91
01-05-2008, 06:37 PM
For some people it's always bleak. Thankfully their number inside Sox Fandom has been on the wane since October 26, 2005.

For many people old habits die hard. The rest of us must live with them.

:wink:

You got that right.


Doomsday occurred the day the Sox traded Jeremy Reed. :(:

voodoochile
01-05-2008, 06:51 PM
Now that the Sox have one the series (in 05) why don't we just close down the team and go out of business. We won it once - nothing else to play for ever.

Build statues of KW and JR, those immortal heros and have a Sox day in July sometime and have those great memories and forget the rest.

Look - if you invoke the fact that the Sox won in 05 over and over and over and over as the answer to every criticism, what's the point of having a conversation?

You guys can have your memories. Pretty sad stuff - looking at one WS as the end all and be all of Sox baseball.

I prefer to look to the future, which is pretty bleak at the moment.

It's STILL bleak?

The Sox have gotten younger faster, cheaper, deeper and better and you are down on the direction things are going?

Here's something to help you out...

:prozac

:therapy:

johnr1note
01-05-2008, 07:48 PM
Scott Podsednik having a career year in 2005 is "lightening in a bottle". But Scott Podsednik having a career year sometime is not "lightening in a bottle" anymore than it was "lightening in a bottle" that KW willingly paid the price of trading Carlos Lee to get him. By definition Podsednik has to have a career year sometime, and KW paid a steep price for his 507 lead-off at-bats!


In one sense you're right, but I want to elaborate on this concept just a bit. Pods' career year was NOT 2005, but 2003 with Milwaukee, when he hit .314, had 43 stolen bases, and an OBP of .379. His numbers fell off the next year, except for SBs (he had 70 in 2004), but if you recall, its because he tried to hit for more power. Another key stat for those two seasons, and for his entire minor league career was he basically stayed healthy -- he played in 154 games in each his seasons as a starter with the Brewers.

Kenny saw in Scott the potential to be a legit lead off man who would get on base, steal bases, and run the bases with abandon. What he did not foresee (and had no reason to) were the weird muscle strain injuries that put Scott on the shelf for long periods of time. I would wager that if Podsednik could have played 145-150 games a year for the Sox every year, he'd still be our left fielder and lead off man.

But this shows me KW's acumen. Pods' heroics in the post season have made him the thing of legend, and in many fans' eyes has made Scott a greater player than he ever really was. But when healthy, he did his job. It wasn't a fluke. It was part of the plan.

JNS
01-05-2008, 08:13 PM
It's STILL bleak?

The Sox have gotten younger faster, cheaper, deeper and better and you are down on the direction things are going?

Here's something to help you out...

:prozac

:therapy:

Actually, I don't mind this trade. I like Swisher, and I predict he'll make the folks who look at baseball the same way they look at NASCAR (crashes) forget about Rowand. That doesn't mean it wasn't a desperate move.

Also, I profoundly disagree with KW's stated philosophy, which is that the upcoming year over-rides anything else. That's the trap the Bees were in for years. The "we gotta win now but we got nuttin give anyone and we over-pay for the mediocre talent we do get" routine. Gotta plan for the future too. I mean, what happens if I am correct and the Sox are pretty bad in 2008? KW will have totally mortgaged the future and will have almost no talent to give up for rebuilding. All the guys who are worth anything will be another year older and another year slower. Given that KW will never pay premium prices for A1 ballplayers, the Sox will be in for many, many years of second division finishes. Rebuilding will take ten years, not four. To me, that's what we as Sox fans are looking at, and it's bleak.

And the Sox are still not competitive in the division. Period. 82 - 82 will be a great season considering the competition and the present makeup of the team.

I just continue to roll my eyes at the one-trick ponies who use 2005 to rebut any and all arguments. It's just stupid, as in moronic.

You and I have already discussed this and you have said that you feel that ten years (either from 2007 or from 2005, I don't remember which) is about your limit. And that's fair enough - you've set some parameters. For me the time-frame is considerably less - my limit was up at the end of the 2007 season.

But that said, it's just so dumb for people to use the 2005 argument to trump everything else, including the many, many issues the team faces today. If 2005 was the end-all-to-be-all, then why bother playing ever again? All goals have been met and the future is meaningless.

For you the limit is somewhere around 2015. For me it's now, but for some of these folks there is no limit. And to me that defeats the entire purpose of being a fan, which is hope for the future, and desire for winning NEXT YEAR. Last year has limited affect, and the further back you go, the less it means.

The fact that BB has not won a WS and KW has does not make KW better GM than BB. It's a pointless, circular argument.

JNS
01-05-2008, 08:32 PM
For some people it's always bleak. Thankfully their number inside Sox Fandom has been on the wane since October 26, 2005.

For many people old habits die hard. The rest of us must live with them.

:wink:

Please.

The future isn't always bleak. Just right now. For obvious reasons. I like the Swisher trade, but I don't see him as a difference-maker. I have no idea about DLS, seems as if Sweeney was a bust, and Gio will probably be missed. So I look at this deal as pretty much a one-for-one Gio for Swisher trade.

But it's time to stop crowing about 2005. It's slipping away. Time to concentrate on da future, such as it is or may be.

A lot of folks were skeptical at this time in 2005, but the Sox didn't lose 90 games in 2004 - they were in the thick of it till mid-August. So it isn't a fair comparison.

I certainly am looking forward to baseball on the South Side in 2008, but I have no expectations of anything above 4th. 3rd if the Twinkies crash and burn, which may happen. 5th if KC is better than they look right now.

Sorry, but that's pretty bleak, especially when you consider that over the past fifteen or so years the Sox have been pretty competitive (I was living in Europe during the Bevington era and managed to miss it altogether).

I just want them to be competitive - and this upcoming season I just don't see it. Could they win the NL Central? YES. But that ain't where they live.

Daver
01-05-2008, 08:40 PM
I find it amusing as hell when people give up on a season that has not even started. There has got to be a special gene that prompts that kind of stupidity.

Save McCuddy's
01-05-2008, 08:50 PM
For the most part, this thread has featured some of the best and most reasoned posts of the past week imo. Highlights:

:smile:Major Leaguers > Prospects
:smile:Quentin and Swisher are not one and done desperados.

I agree that trading minor leaguers for major leaguers is very solid in principle. For a big market team, the only prospects that I cringe to trade are those that are poised to make an impact on the club in the very next season. Anyone who is a year or more away (Carter, De Los Santos) or not slated with a spot (Sweeney) are prime trade bait if the deal makes sense.

If I have any lament, it's Gio. But that's only because I envisioned him in middle relief with the big club as early as April or as a plug into the rotation by midseason this year. But that's me and I'm more bullish on him than I think KW or Ozzie was. Plus, Gonzalez as a contributor in '08 for Swisher is still a net winner for us as Swisher accounts for more W's than Gio could have. Wow, this thread has chased my dark clouds away.

drewcifer
01-05-2008, 08:50 PM
Please.

The future isn't always bleak. Just right now. For obvious reasons. I like the Swisher trade, but I don't see him as a difference-maker. I have no idea about DLS, seems as if Sweeney was a bust, and Gio will probably be missed. So I look at this deal as pretty much a one-for-one Gio for Swisher trade.

But it's time to stop crowing about 2005. It's slipping away. Time to concentrate on da future, such as it is or may be.

A lot of folks were skeptical at this time in 2005, but the Sox didn't lose 90 games in 2004 - they were in the thick of it till mid-August. So it isn't a fair comparison.

I certainly am looking forward to baseball on the South Side in 2008, but I have no expectations of anything above 4th. 3rd if the Twinkies crash and burn, which may happen. 5th if KC is better than they look right now.

Sorry, but that's pretty bleak, especially when you consider that over the past fifteen or so years the Sox have been pretty competitive (I was living in Europe during the Bevington era and managed to miss it altogether).

I just want them to be competitive - and this upcoming season I just don't see it. Could they win the NL Central? YES. But that ain't where they live.

Maybe there's some opportunities in Europe. Check it out. Fortune teller like you with European experience... no telling where you could wind up.

ws05champs
01-05-2008, 09:02 PM
I find it amusing as hell when people give up on a season that has not even started. There has got to be a special gene that prompts that kind of stupidity.

What do you mean? It's January 2005 and with the team we have all the "experts" are picking us for 4th place. How could they be wrong? Oh wait it's actually January 2008, I must have been sleeping for the last three years. In any case the experts are still picking us for 4th place. BTW how did things work out by the end of the 2005 season anyway?

Jerome
01-05-2008, 09:22 PM
Actually, I don't mind this trade. I like Swisher, and I predict he'll make the folks who look at baseball the same way they look at NASCAR (crashes) forget about Rowand. That doesn't mean it wasn't a desperate move.

And the Sox are still not competitive in the division. Period. 82 - 82 will be a great season considering the competition and the present makeup of the team.

I just continue to roll my eyes at the one-trick ponies who use 2005 to rebut any and all arguments. It's just stupid, as in moronic.

But that said, it's just so dumb for people to use the 2005 argument to trump everything else, including the many, many issues the team faces today. If 2005 was the end-all-to-be-all, then why bother playing ever again? All goals have been met and the future is meaningless.

The fact that BB has not won a WS and KW has does not make KW better GM than BB. It's a pointless, circular argument.

As excited as I am to see Nick Swisher play in a Sox uniform for the next 5 years, I agree with most of what you have said here as well. I'm not comfortable with 'KW did it in 05' as an argument against anyone who criticizes KW's offseason.

That said I also think that an elite minor league system is not as important when so many of your big league regulars (Swisher, Fields, Richar, Danks etc.) are so young.

drewcifer
01-05-2008, 09:31 PM
That said I think an elite minor league system is useless if it doesn't feed into your big league lineup, or help to add pieces to it.

Fixed it for you.

Being an "elite" farm is a dumb waste of $ unless you're a consistent division winner. The great Billy Beane can't even get that right - He's selling his major league team to build his farm!!!

Go A's. There's still that crusty 'ole Blanton to get rid of....

PaleHoseGeorge
01-05-2008, 09:52 PM
Put me down in favor of Billy Beane building for Oakland the greatest minor league system in baseball. It makes trades like the one KW pulled off this week all the sweeter for the Sox.
:thumbsup:

You know something else? Fleecing these small market teams for their best major league talent is kinda fun. I hope the Sox keep doing it.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

88 years playing the chump is long enough for me. Not for other people, of course...
:cool:

PaleHoseGeorge
01-05-2008, 10:01 PM
In one sense you're right, but I want to elaborate on this concept just a bit. Pods' career year was NOT 2005, but 2003 with Milwaukee, when he hit .314, had 43 stolen bases, and an OBP of .379.

Gosh, you mean what Scott Podsednik did in 2005 wasn't just possible, but even probable? What kind of KW boot-licker are you???
:wink:

I'm sure there are many other "examples" of how the 2005 Sox were nothing but "flukes" and KW just lucky enough to capture "lightning in a bottle". I have little doubt they'll be posted right here at WSI, too.

You and I can hardly wait!
:cool:

JNS
01-05-2008, 10:15 PM
Gosh, you mean what Scott Podsednik did in 2005 wasn't just possible, but even probable? What kind of KW boot-licker are you???
:wink:

I'm sure there are many other "examples" of how the 2005 Sox were nothing but "flukes" and KW just lucky enough to capture "lightning in a bottle". I have little doubt they'll be posted right here at WSI, too.

You and I can hardly wait!
:cool:

If not winning a WS is NOT the fault of the GM, how is winning the thing a credit to him?

Can't have it both ways. If he isn't to blame for the 2007 fiasco, how is it his doing that we won in 2005?

Oh yeah, "players don't win championships, organizations do." Who said that? Some other Rheinsdorf employee I think.

Again, can't have it both ways. If he deserves credit for 05, he deserves blame for 07.

I do my best to look at the macro scene. "Lightning in a bottle" is unfair to KW - he did put that team together. And he put the 07 together as well.

This is real life, inasmuch as baseball is real life. It ain't "heads I win, tails you lose" stuff.

Swisher and Orlando Cabrera will make the team more fun and watchable. And they are probably good for several wins. But is this team going anywhere? I really doubt it.

JNS
01-05-2008, 10:21 PM
Maybe there's some opportunities in Europe. Check it out. Fortune teller like you with European experience... no telling where you could wind up.

Snarky responses only indicate a weak position.

JNS
01-05-2008, 10:29 PM
As excited as I am to see Nick Swisher play in a Sox uniform for the next 5 years, I agree with most of what you have said here as well. I'm not comfortable with 'KW did it in 05' as an argument against anyone who criticizes KW's offseason.

That said I also think that an elite minor league system is not as important when so many of your big league regulars (Swisher, Fields, Richar, Danks etc.) are so young.

My guess is that he'll move Crede for a bunch of prospects to re-load the system.

That said, a team can survive a lousy system for a while. No great team is made up of exclusively homegrown talent or acquired talent - usually it is a mix. Only super-rich teams like the Yankees can afford to just go out and buy a team, but if the Sox can get through 08 without totally melting down they ought to be able to rebuild - my personal belief is that they should back up the truck now, but KW and JR don't operate that way, at least not recently. The Tigers seem to have a good mix of developed and aquired talent. Granderson and the young starters from the farm, Mags, Sheffield, The Gambler, Renteria, and Pudge from signings and trades.

I just worry about the talent evaluation operation on the Sox. KW threw Duane Schaeffer under the bus, but I wonder if there isn't a lot of blame to go around regarding the nonperformance of a lot of their young talent.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-05-2008, 10:34 PM
If he [KW] isn't to blame for the 2007 fiasco, how is it his doing that we won in 2005?

I'm guessing having Podsednik go down on April 17 and Jim Thome later that same month had much more to do with the complete collapse of the 2007 Sox than anything KW did or didn't do. But that's just me...

I prefer giving credit to the ballplayers' performance rather than the GM. I simply give credit to the GM for assembling the roster. I'm silly that way.

cards press box
01-05-2008, 10:39 PM
Yes, I know the history of what the A's have done the last 7 or 8 years. But how does a GM in baseball build a team to "just get there" year in and year out? You have to be pretty darn good, and lucky, to make the playoffs in baseball. I don't see the difference in a team good enough to make the playoffs and a team good enough to win in the playoffs.

Here's how a GM builds a team "just to get to the playoffs." If your team is in a really weak division (like, say, the NL Central), you can build what is no more than the 6th, 7th or 8th best team in the league and make the playoffs. In the days before divisional play, the 7th best team in the league was called a "second division" team. Building the 7th best team in the NL or AL requires obviously requires less talent than building an elite team.

One more observation -- it's true that the playoffs are a crapshoot but the odds of a middling club with 84 or 85 wins going all the way are a lot more steep than an elite club (93+ wins) winning the WS.

cards press box
01-05-2008, 11:30 PM
I'm guessing having Podsednik go down on April 17 and Jim Thome later that same month had much more to do with the complete collapse of the 2007 Sox than anything KW did or didn't do. But that's just me...

I prefer giving credit to the ballplayers' performance rather than the GM. I simply give credit to the GM for assembling the roster. I'm silly that way.

I think that some posters are missing the point on Kenny Williams: he has consistently displayed the courage to make bold moves. I like that about Williams. Bold moves look great when they work and maybe not so great when they don't. Some of this city's more venal columnists (like Greg Couch and his colleague whose name probably shouldn't be mentioned) love to lay back in the weeds and second guess any moves that don't work. That kind of "criticism" is gutless. And it's not like Couch is an honest broker, either. Couch is a Cub fan who hates the type of bold (and often) cagey moves that Williams makes simply because: (1) those moves sometimes pay off big and (2) the Cubs, swimming in their Tribune/WGN corporate mediocrity, are allergic to such bold moves.

That brings me back to my original point -- KW's bold moves have greatly helped the franchise. What did the mother say to the rocker in Almost Famous, "'Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid,' Goethe said that." KW is bold and his boldness and excellent work resulted in the 2005 World Series championship. I'm sick of the self-annointed geniuses putting KW and Guillen down for absolutely no good reason.

voodoochile
01-05-2008, 11:50 PM
I'm guessing having Podsednik go down on April 17 and Jim Thome later that same month had much more to do with the complete collapse of the 2007 Sox than anything KW did or didn't do. But that's just me...

I prefer giving credit to the ballplayers' performance rather than the GM. I simply give credit to the GM for assembling the roster. I'm silly that way.

Add in the fact that EVERY SINGLE YEAR 29 GM's fail to build THE TEAM to win the WS championship. So, having a guy who has done it recently seems like an advantage. Considering he's the only Sox GM to do it in anyone's lifetime here at WSI, maybe he deserves more credit for "winning" that single one than he does for "losing" the others.

Maybe if the Sox were the Yankees, it would feel different to only have won a single championship during KW's reign, but unfortunately, the Sox ain't the Yankees and the guy who built the team that did win a championship deserves more than one bad year with tons of injuries and falloffs before being thrown under the bus.

JNS, you're constantly talking about what a poor excuse for an organization the flubbies are. Wouldn't dumping KW be kind of a flubbie management move? I mean they were the ones who ran Zimmer out of town after he took them to the playoffs and then the same thing to the next guy (I forget his name, he coached third for a while thereafter). They are the ones who are constantly looking for new managers and running off managers who have had success. How about we try the stability method and see where it gets us...

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 12:56 AM
Thank you. And you know what else? KW did something that no other GM has done for a Chicago baseball team for what is now 177 baseball seasons (counting both sides of town) -- won a world series! This is not just "once a decade" No Chicago team has done it twice in 177 tries. That does deserve some recognition.

And I want a list of all the prospects KW has traded away that have had an impact that would require us to go back and look and say "maybe we shouldn't have made that deal." Hindsight being 20/20, you can maybe find one or two players that have made impacts, but when you consider what that player brought us in the trade, I'll bet at worst it would be objectively considered a wash.

KW is no fool -- even though Billy Beane makes him look like one in "Moneyball." The "Moneyball" theory has yet to win a World Series (and don't try and throw Theo Epstein at me -- that ain't Billy Beane's theories in action -- All Theo is, is a BP propeller-head with George Steinbrenner's checkbook.)

Look, I love KW as much as the next guy (probably even more) but let's be realistic--

If in 2005 our big 4 studs hadn't pitched like otherworldly sex-gods for 11 games there's no way we would have won the world series.

If that very unlikely stretch of awesome pitching hadn't happened, would that have made Kenny less of a GM? Is his genius as a GM in knowing that in those 11 games, Mark, Freddy, Jose, and Jonny were going to pitch well? Sure, he knew they were solid pitchers, great even. But what if they had just dicked the dog in the postseason? What if Blum hadn't his a homer and a dink and a dogger lost us a crucial game?

Or what if AJ hadn't been heads up and we lost game 2 of the ALCS somehow?

How would one piddling play that could have easily gone one way or another have shown Kenny to be a worse GM, somehow?

If that's the case, then it's pretty hard to say that just because all those things DID click that somehow gives him some sort of automatic high ground despite very concrete arguments about Kenny's weaknesses as a GM.

johnr1note
01-06-2008, 12:58 AM
If not winning a WS is NOT the fault of the GM, how is winning the thing a credit to him?

Can't have it both ways. If he isn't to blame for the 2007 fiasco, how is it his doing that we won in 2005?

Oh yeah, "players don't win championships, organizations do." Who said that? Some other Rheinsdorf employee I think.

Again, can't have it both ways. If he deserves credit for 05, he deserves blame for 07.

I do my best to look at the macro scene. "Lightning in a bottle" is unfair to KW - he did put that team together. And he put the 07 together as well.

This is real life, inasmuch as baseball is real life. It ain't "heads I win, tails you lose" stuff.

Swisher and Orlando Cabrera will make the team more fun and watchable. And they are probably good for several wins. But is this team going anywhere? I really doubt it.

Hold on! I hope I'm not mixing up who I'm arguing with here, but I thought the point being pushed was KW isn't that great a GM because he's "only" been to the playoffs twice, and "only" won 1 world series, when other teams get to the post season more often.

I tend to agree with PalehoseGeorge here -- the 07 White Sox were both bitten by the injury bug AND had several key players perform below their usual numbers.

But I will give you this -- the one area where Kenny missed the boat was the bullpen. Several of his moves that were made prior to the season had many of us here claiming the Sox had the best bullpen in the AL on paper. Were we wrong there! And I'll give KW plenty of blame for that. But the Linebrink signing is a step in the right direction.

Ika
01-06-2008, 01:09 AM
Here's how a GM builds a team "just to get to the playoffs." If your team is in a really weak division (like, say, the NL Central), you can build what is no more than the 6th, 7th or 8th best team in the league and make the playoffs. In the days before divisional play, the 7th best team in the league was called a "second division" team. Building the 7th best team in the NL or AL requires obviously requires less talent than building an elite team.

One more observation -- it's true that the playoffs are a crapshoot but the odds of a middling club with 84 or 85 wins going all the way are a lot more steep than an elite club (93+ wins) winning the WS.

Here are the wins for the A's in the last eight seasons:

2000: 91
2001: 102
2002: 103
2003: 96
2004: 91
2005: 88
2006: 93
2007: 78

Last year aside, the A's are an elite team, consistently, and it is because of Billy Beane and Bill James.

Nelson Foxtrot
01-06-2008, 01:09 AM
I think each GM has his own unique strengths and weaknesses. For example, I think Beane is the best in baseball at judging raw young talent in prospects, whereas Williams is the best in baseball at finding hidden unused talent in "project" players. So while Williams has perhaps been subpar with his drafts, I don't think any other GM would have been able to sign Loaiza dirt cheap, have him come a couple 1-0 losses from a Cy Young Award, then trade him for an Irabu-like disaster in Contreras, who would become a dominating force. Likewise with picking up a minor-league "problem child" nobody else wanted and giving him the chance to improve himself and become one of the best closers in the sport.

Williams was very unpopular after his first four years, and I think he rolled the dice going into 2005 out of necessity. If the Sox missed the playoffs, I think we'd be debating the merits of Sox GM Rick Hahn these days. It was a high risk/high reward situation, and I don't think he would have made such drastic changes if he knew he had total job security, was popular among fans and the media, and had a history of success. He does deserve a great deal of credit for that offseason, though. It had the potential to turn out like the disaster Larry Himes had across town replacing Maddux and Dawson with multiple players in 1993. The 2005 offense was subpar (even Tampa Bay was better), but we had the best pitching in the league, and it carried us to a championship. Rather than rest on that, Williams made some big improvements to the offense in 2006, even if the pitching let us down. I do disagree with people using past success to judge any new deals, however. I remember some people not liking the Freddy to Philly trade, and others simply pointed out 2005 and that we should trust Kenny. While I liked the trade then and even more now, that logic made no sense as the other GM (Pat Gillick) had won twice as many championships. Every trade should be judged on its own merits.

While I think Beane has done a great job given budget limitations, he's far from a creative genius. Mack and McCarthy had stressed the importance of getting on base before Beane was born, people like Max Bishop, Gene Tenace, Eddie Stanky, and Ed Yost made livings with that strategy, and plenty of championships have been won by teams that shunned stolen bases for whatever reason or were just plain slow as molasses. Emphasizing OBP and SLG doesn't sound any different than Earl Weaver's 3-run homer gameplan. I understand that these talents/stats had become undervalued by other GMs when Beane got his job, but I'm not sure if they were right for the A's. "Get on base anyway possible, avoid running into outs, then knock the runners in with extra-base hits" is a strategy that seems much better for The Cell than The Coliseum.

74-75% is considered the break-even rate for stolen bases these days, with the rate being lower twenty years ago, and much lower forty years ago. Get on and wait to be knocked in makes sense this decade, whereas being aggressive and scraping out a run anyway possible is the better approach against Bob Gibson in 1967. Shouldn't this apply to lower-scoring ballparks as well? If you're in the worst hitter's park in the league, wouldn't it make sense to try some steals, sacrifices, and hit-and-runs? I can understand shying away from somebody who goes 50/80 on the basepaths, but what about multiple players who can pick their spots and go 14/17? I'm of the belief that the Sox would be best with the top two lineup spots being filled with guys who can simply get on and be knocked in by our big bats, whereas the A's would be best with speedy "grinders" filling those top spots.

drewcifer
01-06-2008, 01:17 AM
Here are the wins for the A's in the last eight seasons:

2000: 91
2001: 102
2002: 103
2003: 96
2004: 91
2005: 88
2006: 93
2007: 78

Last year aside, the A's are an elite team, consistently, and it is because of Billy Beane and Bill James.

They play in baseball's only 4 team division. They have one competitor.

Good lord, numbnuts.

Bill James and Billy Beane did that??? :rolleyes:

voodoochile
01-06-2008, 01:22 AM
They play in baseball's only 4 team division. They have one competitor.

Good lord, numbnuts.

Bill James and Billy Beane did that??? :rolleyes:

Please lets not start name calling. It adds nothing to the conversation and is how threads devolve into roadhouse material and posters get banned.

drewcifer
01-06-2008, 01:22 AM
Please lets not start name calling. It adds nothing to the conversation and is how threads devolve into roadhouse material and posters get banned.

Sorry - I apologize.

Ika
01-06-2008, 01:29 AM
They play in baseball's only 4 team division. They have one competitor.

Good lord, numbnuts.

Bill James and Billy Beane did that??? :rolleyes:

Maybe you should go back and look at the numbers. Look at the wins, and then look at them again, and again. Regardless of competition, they have averaged 90+ wins for seven years with a payroll under $50 million. The sample size and the consistency undercut your argument--as glib, meaningless and bro-tastic as it was.

drewcifer
01-06-2008, 01:35 AM
Maybe you should go back and look at the numbers. Look at the wins, and then look at them again, and again. Regardless of competition, they have averaged 90+ wins for seven years with a payroll under $50 million. The sample size and the consistency undercut your argument--as glib, meaningless and bro-tastic as it was.

Put them in a division where they play the Indians 19 times more, then ...glib and tastic...stuff...whatever your point is.

Billy Beane doesn't play games and neither does Bill James. They don't pitch, they don't coach players, they don't add to clubhouse chemistry... Hell, I read Moneyball (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/fugnutz/Picture1.jpg)... Billy doesn't even leave his office.

Bro...tastic!

Ika
01-06-2008, 01:49 AM
Put them in a division where they play the Indians 19 times more, then ...glib and tastic...stuff...whatever your point is.

Billy Beane doesn't play games and neither does Bill James. They don't pitch, they don't coach players, they don't add to clubhouse chemistry... Hell, I read Moneyball (http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f322/fugnutz/Picture1.jpg)... Billy doesn't even leave his office.

Bro...tastic.

I back down. You've restated a term I used and then informed me of the fact that executives don't play in baseball games. Well done. Just for a lark, , though, look at the Indians wins for the last eight years, not just the last 3. In fact, look at the whole AL Central's average wins from 2000-2008, and compare that to the AL West. Not much of a difference, maybe worth one to three wins a year, still placing the A's at the 90+ mark for wins over seven years, with a payroll under 50 million, emphasizing OBP and drafting college pitchers with proven results and relatively low upside.

But you're right. I don't remember ever seeing Billy Beane hit a single home run or get a single strikeout from 2000-2008. I grudgingly concede that, although it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Also, team chemistry? In baseball? Seriously? I see you're really making an effort to appear like a good-ol', down home, blue collar, beer drinking, lathe-operating caricature of an affectation of a Rust Belt sports fan, but you're wrong, and you have no evidence for your arguments, goof-n***. Ha! What an endearing, jocular insult I just used! How 'bout a Schlitz over here Marty!

drewcifer
01-06-2008, 01:55 AM
I back down. You've restated a term I used and then informed me of the fact that executives don't play in baseball games. Well done. Just for a lark, , though, look at the Indians wins for the last eight years, not just the last 3. In fact, look at the whole AL Central's average wins from 2000-2008, and compare that to the AL West. Not much of a difference, maybe worth one to three wins a year, still placing the A's at the 90+ mark for wins over seven years, with a payroll under 50 million, emphasizing OBP and drafting college pitchers with proven results and relatively low upside.

But you're right. I don't remember ever seeing Billy Beane hit a single home run or get a single strikeout from 2000-2008. I grudgingly concede that, although it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

Also, team chemistry? In baseball? Seriously? I see you're really making an effort to appear like a good-ol', down home, blue collar, beer drinking, lathe-operating caricature of an affectation of a Rust Belt sports fan, but you're wrong, and you have no evidence for your arguments, goof-n***. Ha! What an endearing, jocular insult I just used! How 'bout a Schlitz over here Marty!

You tell me how Bill James and Billy Beane are responsible then, for winning an average 6.38 games more a year with 1 team less in their division as competition. You tell me how OBP, and sabermath, and all this bull**** has ANYTHING to do with the A's record. Are you attributing it to college draftees and OBP? Show us.

For all those Wins, in the years you cited, why no pennants or championships if so EASY?

You said they're responsible - How so?

cards press box
01-06-2008, 03:08 AM
Here are the wins for the A's in the last eight seasons:

2000: 91
2001: 102
2002: 103
2003: 96
2004: 91
2005: 88
2006: 93
2007: 78

Last year aside, the A's are an elite team, consistently, and it is because of Billy Beane and Bill James.

I wasn't suggesting that the A's did not have an elite team during this decade. I was only pointing out that a team could shoot for a division championship without trying to become an elite team. The Cubs in the late '90's were an excellent example of this. Remember when the Cubs passed on mis-season deals in 1998 for Mike Piazza and Randy Johnson, among others? The Cubs did so because they were just trying to make the playoffs -- they were not really trying to become the best team in the NL or in the majors. They won 90 games (with the 90th coming in the 163rd game of the season against San Francisco), finished 2nd behind Houston and won the wild card.

However, as you have brought up the A's of 00's, I have my own theory on who was really responsible for their admittedly fine play and it is not Bill James: I nominate Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito. Those guys were consistently great and they led the A's to most of those fine records from 2000-2004 with their stellar pitching. Billy Beane famously admitted that while his "Moneyball" style may work fine in the regular season but not in the postseason because the playoffs are simply luck (for a critical analysis of Beane's rather flippant explanation of the A's lack of post-season success, see the following article from Elysian Fields Quarterly, http://efqreview.com/NewFiles/v22n2/numbers.html).http://efqreview.com/NewFiles/v22n2/numbers.html (http://efqreview.com/NewFiles/v22n2/numbers.html)

Beane is wrong about the playoffs. The A's haven't done well because of their below average defense and below average speed. Balanced teams do better in the playoffs because they can adjust their game to the situation at hand. Beane's A's teams rarely (if ever) manufacture runs in the regular season and have a hard time doing so in the postseason as well.

KW and Guillen have been attempting to build balanced teams since both arrived on the scene. The Sox have made changes to add more on-base percentage, situational hitting, good baserunning and speed to the 2008 Sox and that's a good thing.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-06-2008, 09:40 AM
They play in baseball's only 4 team division. They have one competitor.
Bill James and Billy Beane did that???

You wouldn't be suggesting that the Texas Rangers couldn't find their ******* with two hands and a flashlight, would you?

:wink:

It's a damned shame Bud Selig didn't write Money Ball. Then everyone could agree that the guy who created the A.L. West is the biggest genius in baseball.

johnr1note
01-06-2008, 09:44 AM
I wasn't suggesting that the A's did not have an elite team during this decade. I was only pointing out that a team could shoot for a division championship without trying to become an elite team. The Cubs in the late '90's were an excellent example of this. Remember when the Cubs passed on mis-season deals in 1998 for Mike Piazza and Randy Johnson, among others? The Cubs did so because they were just trying to make the playoffs -- they were not really trying to become the best team in the NL or in the majors. They won 90 games (with the 90th coming in the 163rd game of the season against San Francisco), finished 2nd behind Houston and won the wild card.

However, as you have brought up the A's of 00's, I have my own theory on who was really responsible for their admittedly fine play and it is not Bill James: I nominate Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito. Those guys were consistently great and they led the A's to most of those fine records from 2000-2004 with their stellar pitching. Billy Beane famously admitted that while his "Moneyball" style may work fine in the regular season but not in the postseason because the playoffs are simply luck (for a critical analysis of Beane's rather flippant explanation of the A's lack of post-season success, see the following article from Elysian Fields Quarterly, http://efqreview.com/NewFiles/v22n2/numbers.html).http://efqreview.com/NewFiles/v22n2/numbers.html (http://efqreview.com/NewFiles/v22n2/numbers.html)

Beane is wrong about the playoffs. The A's haven't done well because of their below average defense and below average speed. Balanced teams do better in the playoffs because they can adjust their game to the situation at hand. Beane's A's teams rarely (if ever) manufacture runs in the regular season and have a hard time doing so in the postseason as well.

KW and Guillen have been attempting to build balanced teams since both arrived on the scene. The Sox have made changes to add more on-base percentage, situational hitting, good baserunning and speed to the 2008 Sox and that's a good thing.

Thank you! Well spoken! I agree wholeheartedly!

The White Sox experienced ultimate success when KW switched gears and sought to build a balanced team.

I think KW is trying to do the same now -- he's just not finished yet. Will he succeed? Will the Sox be legit contenders? Time will tell. But I'm willing to bet when all is said and done, the Sox WILL be legit contenders in part because of the factors highlighted above.

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 10:32 AM
You tell me how Bill James and Billy Beane are responsible then, for winning an average 6.38 games more a year with 1 team less in their division as competition. You tell me how OBP, and sabermath, and all this bull**** has ANYTHING to do with the A's record. Are you attributing it to college draftees and OBP? Show us.

For all those Wins, in the years you cited, why no pennants or championships if so EASY?

You said they're responsible - How so?

I'm not sure what a "four team division" has to do with anything.

Wouldn't "quality of division" be more relevant, since in a 4 team division all that means is you play specific division opponents a lot more often than in a 5 team division?

For instance, in 2001 when the AL West was made up of a pretty good Oakland, a pretty good Anaheim, and a very good Seattle and a lousy Texas, wouldn't that make it tougher for Oakland to have to play Seattle and Anaheim a lot more than the White Sox, in the comedy central, had to play Cleveland?

But then again you are really obsessed with this "four team division" idea, so it must be really really relevant...

thedudeabides
01-06-2008, 11:28 AM
My guess is that he'll move Crede for a bunch of prospects to re-load the system.

That said, a team can survive a lousy system for a while. No great team is made up of exclusively homegrown talent or acquired talent - usually it is a mix. Only super-rich teams like the Yankees can afford to just go out and buy a team, but if the Sox can get through 08 without totally melting down they ought to be able to rebuild - my personal belief is that they should back up the truck now, but KW and JR don't operate that way, at least not recently. The Tigers seem to have a good mix of developed and aquired talent. Granderson and the young starters from the farm, Mags, Sheffield, The Gambler, Renteria, and Pudge from signings and trades.

I just worry about the talent evaluation operation on the Sox. KW threw Duane Schaeffer under the bus, but I wonder if there isn't a lot of blame to go around regarding the nonperformance of a lot of their young talent.

Verlander is the only starter the Tigers drafted. Robertson and Willis were Marlins, and Bonderman was aquired from the A's. Granderson is the only everyday contributor the Tigers have drafted and developed. Zumaya is another.

This is very similar to how KW has built his teams. Trading away for other teams young talent, developing a few of your own, and signing and trading for established big league talent.

JNS
01-06-2008, 12:30 PM
Add in the fact that EVERY SINGLE YEAR 29 GM's fail to build THE TEAM to win the WS championship. So, having a guy who has done it recently seems like an advantage. Considering he's the only Sox GM to do it in anyone's lifetime here at WSI, maybe he deserves more credit for "winning" that single one than he does for "losing" the others.

Maybe if the Sox were the Yankees, it would feel different to only have won a single championship during KW's reign, but unfortunately, the Sox ain't the Yankees and the guy who built the team that did win a championship deserves more than one bad year with tons of injuries and falloffs before being thrown under the bus.

JNS, you're constantly talking about what a poor excuse for an organization the flubbies are. Wouldn't dumping KW be kind of a flubbie management move? I mean they were the ones who ran Zimmer out of town after he took them to the playoffs and then the same thing to the next guy (I forget his name, he coached third for a while thereafter). They are the ones who are constantly looking for new managers and running off managers who have had success. How about we try the stability method and see where it gets us...

Uh, Zimmer was the field manager, not the GM. Huge difference. I believe Frye (are you referring to him?) was the GM. Or maybe Bob Kennedy?

But I think it is an interesting point. And I disagree. He's now had seven full years and only one post-season appearance. The fact that it ended up as a WS championship is irrelevant in this discussion. Frequency does mean something, and the more you get to the post-season, the better your chances of winning the whole thing become - you can't win the WS without getting to the playoffs first.

So, firing him after one playoff appearance in seven years, WS or not is not "running him out of town." It's saying "we are looking for a new approach."

That said, Zimmer or whoever his boss was did essentially the same thing - one playoff appearance, and done.

Let me put it another way. If the 2005 Sox had NOT won the WS, had gotten there and lost, or lost in an earlier round, what would your feelings about the Sox brain trust be now? I'm arguing that - and this is part of the "the GM only sets up the roster, he doesn't perform on the field" POV - WS championship or not, one playoff appearance in seven years to not good enough.

If you are going to give the players the credit for winning once they are on the field, then you have to look at the result of the yearly rosters a GM puts out there, and so far, KW has had ONE roster that won a division or made the wild card. Once they got there, the players went on a roll (after nearly tanking in September - how would you feel about KW if they had lost that series with the Indians and blown the post-season?) and they only lost one game in thepost-season. Great performance!

But my argument is that KW has not put rosters on the field the OTHER six years that gave the players a chance to win it all because they didn't even get to the post-season. And of course the issues I have with his personality, spin, and attitude.Am I one of the people who were willing to put up with years of bad teams if we only won one? Obviously not. If someone feels that way, well, that's a legit POV. Just ain't mine.

EDIT: I am being too harsh here. In 04 the team did have a chance, but they didn't have quite enough and ran out of steam in mid-August.

So I don't see how this has much to do with Don Zimmer, who again, was field manager. Frye or whoever? Maybe, but again, how many years did he have (fewer than seven I know) and how many playoff appearances did her have (just one)? So maybe he was in fact run out of town, but after seven or eight years KW would not be run out of town, just fired.

As for doing anything in anyones lifetime, well, in my lifetime Veeck got us to the WS in 59, Hemond got us to the playoffs in 83, and Schuler did it in 93 (and would have in 94 buthis boss had bigger plans). Remember, PLAYERS get teams to the WS, not GMs - they only put teams that may or may not make it to the post-season together. The fact that we didn't win the WS on any of those occasions is not germane to this discussion.

JNS
01-06-2008, 12:32 PM
Verlander is the only starter the Tigers drafted. Robertson and Willis were Marlins, and Bonderman was aquired from the A's. Granderson is the only everyday contributor the Tigers have drafted and developed. Zumaya is another.

This is very similar to how KW has built his teams. Trading away for other teams young talent, developing a few of your own, and signing and trading for established big league talent.

Did Bonderman and Robertson need more work in the Tigers system? Or did they hit the big club right away?

johnr1note
01-06-2008, 12:43 PM
I'm not sure what a "four team division" has to do with anything.

Wouldn't "quality of division" be more relevant, since in a 4 team division all that means is you play specific division opponents a lot more often than in a 5 team division?

For instance, in 2001 when the AL West was made up of a pretty good Oakland, a pretty good Anaheim, and a very good Seattle and a lousy Texas, wouldn't that make it tougher for Oakland to have to play Seattle and Anaheim a lot more than the White Sox, in the comedy central, had to play Cleveland?

But then again you are really obsessed with this "four team division" idea, so it must be really really relevant...

I don't see the 4 team division argument either. Everyone is scheduled to play thier intra-division rivals 19 times. That means the teams in the AL West will play more games against the Central and East. Maybe playing 6 more games against Kansas City and Tampa Bay is the difference?

voodoochile
01-06-2008, 12:53 PM
Uh, Zimmer was the field manager, not the GM. Huge difference. I believe Frye (are you referring to him?) was the GM. Or maybe Bob Kennedy?

But I think it is an interesting point. And I disagree. He's now had seven full years and only one post-season appearance. The fact that it ended up as a WS championship is irrelevant in this discussion. Frequency does mean something, and the more you get to the post-season, the better your chances of winning the whole thing become - you can't win the WS without getting to the playoffs first.

So, firing him after one playoff appearance in seven years, WS or not is not "running him out of town." It's saying "we are looking for a new approach."

That said, Zimmer or whoever his boss was did essentially the same thing - one playoff appearance, and done.

Let me put it another way. If the 2005 Sox had NOT won the WS, had gotten there and lost, or lost in an earlier round, what would your feelings about the Sox brain trust be now? I'm arguing that - and this is part of the "the GM only sets up the roster, he doesn't perform on the field" POV - WS championship or not, one playoff appearance in seven years to not good enough.

If you are going to give the players the credit for winning once they are on the field, then you have to look at the result of the yearly rosters a GM puts out there, and so far, KW has had ONE roster that won a division or made the wild card. Once they got there, the players went on a roll (after nearly tanking in September - how would you feel about KW if they had lost that series with the Indians and blown the post-season?) and they only lost one game in thepost-season. Great performance!

But my argument is that KW has not put rosters on the field the OTHER six years that gave the players a chance to win it all because they didn't even get to the post-season. And of course the issues I have with his personality, spin, and attitude.Am I one of the people who were willing to put up with years of bad teams if we only won one? Obviously not. If someone feels that way, well, that's a legit POV. Just ain't mine.

EDIT: I am being too harsh here. In 04 the team did have a chance, but they didn't have quite enough and ran out of steam in mid-August.

So I don't see how this has much to do with Don Zimmer, who again, was field manager. Frye or whoever? Maybe, but again, how many years did he have (fewer than seven I know) and how many playoff appearances did her have (just one)? So maybe he was in fact run out of town, but after seven or eight years KW would not be run out of town, just fired.

As for doing anything in anyones lifetime, well, in my lifetime Veeck got us to the WS in 59, Hemond got us to the playoffs in 83, and Schuler did it in 93 (and would have in 94 buthis boss had bigger plans). Remember, PLAYERS get teams to the WS, not GMs - they only put teams that may or may not make it to the post-season together. The fact that we didn't win the WS on any of those occasions is not germane to this discussion.

You say winning the WS is irrelevant to the discussion. I say it matters a ton. I'd rather get to the playoffs once every 7 years with a good chance of winning it all than limp in like Oakland and Atlanta for a long period of time and have mostly heartbreak to show for it.

There are those who claim that winning in the playoffs is mostly luck. I will point to last year's World Series as exactly why that argument is full of crap. Boston was clearly better than Colorado in all aspects of the game.

Build to win a championship and hope you make it through the marathon that is every regular season where so many things can effect playoff contention (injuries, sub-par years, bad bounces, etc.). Then when you do make the playoffs, you are ready to win it all.

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 01:32 PM
You say winning the WS is irrelevant to the discussion. I say it matters a ton. I'd rather get to the playoffs once every 7 years with a good chance of winning it all than limp in like Oakland and Atlanta for a long period of time and have mostly heartbreak to show for it.

There are those who claim that winning in the playoffs is mostly luck. I will point to last year's World Series as exactly why that argument is full of crap. Boston was clearly better than Colorado in all aspects of the game.

Build to win a championship and hope you make it through the marathon that is every regular season where so many things can effect playoff contention (injuries, sub-par years, bad bounces, etc.). Then when you do make the playoffs, you are ready to win it all.

In 2001 the A's had as good a team going into the playoffs as the White Sox did in 2005.

Jeter made a once in a lifetime play and the A's got knocked out of the first round.

It's not like I love Beane, but to act like he just has these gimmicky "only built to win in the regular season" teams is kind of silly

RowanDye
01-06-2008, 01:52 PM
/efqreview.com/NewFiles/v22n2/numbers.html (http://efqreview.com/NewFiles/v22n2/numbers.html)

Beane is wrong about the playoffs. The A's haven't done well because of their below average defense and below average speed. Balanced teams do better in the playoffs because they can adjust their game to the situation at hand. Beane's A's teams rarely (if ever) manufacture runs in the regular season and have a hard time doing so in the postseason as well.

KW and Guillen have been attempting to build balanced teams since both arrived on the scene. The Sox have made changes to add more on-base percentage, situational hitting, good baserunning and speed to the 2008 Sox and that's a good thing.

Obviously the '08 Sox team hasn't been fielded yet, but the projected defensive lineup has me a bit worried. If Fields plays 3B and Swisher plays CF, that's two pretty important defensive spots with weaknesses.

I suppose that you could argue that Cabrera>Uribe, Quinton>Pods, and Richar>Iguchi.


But my argument is that KW has not put rosters on the field the OTHER six years that gave the players a chance to win it all because they didn't even get to the post-season. And of course the issues I have with his personality, spin, and attitude.Am I one of the people who were willing to put up with years of bad teams if we only won one? Obviously not. If someone feels that way, well, that's a legit POV. Just ain't mine.

EDIT: I am being too harsh here. In 04 the team did have a chance, but they didn't have quite enough and ran out of steam in mid-August.


So GMs are responsible for the regular season and then it's all up to the players? I think, as a whole, the entire organization is responsible for the entire season. If you need to assign blame, then you must pinpoint specific reasons for each team's failure to win.

Are you seriously saying that in '06 KW didn't field a team that could at least go to the playoffs? They underachieved and still won 90 games for christ's sake!

voodoochile
01-06-2008, 02:13 PM
In 2001 the A's had as good a team going into the playoffs as the White Sox did in 2005.

Jeter made a once in a lifetime play and the A's got knocked out of the first round.

It's not like I love Beane, but to act like he just has these gimmicky "only built to win in the regular season" teams is kind of silly

Hmmmm... so it's okay to say, Billy Beane is a great GM because he wins a ton of regular season games and it's not okay to say, Billy Beane really isn't all that because he hasn't managed to win the whole enchilada so far?

By that reckoning, KW is a good GM too because he's only had one losing season in 7 years and managed to win a WS in the process. So, case closed, what's next for discussion?

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 03:24 PM
Hmmmm... so it's okay to say, Billy Beane is a great GM because he wins a ton of regular season games and it's not okay to say, Billy Beane really isn't all that because he hasn't managed to win the whole enchilada so far?

By that reckoning, KW is a good GM too because he's only had one losing season in 7 years and managed to win a WS in the process. So, case closed, what's next for discussion?

Sounds good to me.

I'm just saying let's not hinge KW's gm-dom on his one WS, nor let's not hinge Beane's gm-dom on a lack of a WS title.

Let's actually realistically look at their accomplishments

johnr1note
01-06-2008, 03:40 PM
Sounds good to me.

I'm just saying let's not hinge KW's gm-dom on his one WS, nor let's not hinge Beane's gm-dom on a lack of a WS title.

Let's actually realistically look at their accomplishments

But that's not been the discussion in this thread. Arguments are being put forward claiming that those of us who think KW is a great GM, or, at least, is better than average, are way off -- because KW has one playoff appearance and one WS title in 7 years, therefore he's not a very good GM. Or at least not as good as others, like Billy Beane, who regularly make the post season, even though the A's have fared poorly in post season play.

KW is certainly not God, but he did accomplish something no other GM has done in Chicago in at least 2 lifetimes. That doesn't give him a pass, allowing me to support him in whatever he does. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and at least wait and see what happens as far as the 2008 team is concerned. After he traded away Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik and a third tier reliever, I was incensed. The 2005 White Sox were going nowhere fast. To quote a phrase used here, things "looked bleak."

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 03:46 PM
But that's not been the discussion in this thread. Arguments are being put forward claiming that those of us who think KW is a great GM, or, at least, is better than average, are way off -- because KW has one playoff appearance and one WS title in 7 years, therefore he's not a very good GM. Or at least not as good as others, like Billy Beane, who regularly make the post season, even though the A's have fared poorly in post season play.

KW is certainly not God, but he did accomplish something no other GM has done in Chicago in at least 2 lifetimes. That doesn't give him a pass, allowing me to support him in whatever he does. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and at least wait and see what happens as far as the 2008 team is concerned. After he traded away Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik and a third tier reliever, I was incensed. The 2005 White Sox were going nowhere fast. To quote a phrase used here, things "looked bleak."

The one thing I'll say is that your esteem for KW and his championship is one thing. Basing that esteem on Chicago's WS drought is another thing.

How long the White Sox have gone without a WS has very little to do with what KW may or may not have accomplished. It is no harder to win a WS in Chicago than in, say, Arizona or Florida. Therefore, if you are going to say "Well, a GM won us a championship, therefore he gets some rope to hang himself with" that's one thing. But to say the other thing is completely irrelevant.

gamblinkenny
01-06-2008, 03:56 PM
What really grinds my gears is that KDub keeps trading away our best looking players. I mean, first it was Neal Cotts, then it was Jon Garland, and now Ryan Sweeney. On the other hand we did get Carlos Quentin, who has serious big league "face" potential.

FedEx227
01-06-2008, 04:07 PM
What really grinds my gears is that KDub keeps trading away our best looking players. I mean, first it was Neal Cotts, then it was Jon Garland, and now Ryan Sweeney. On the other hand we did get Carlos Quentin, who has serious big league "face" potential.

Wow. :?:

Oblong
01-06-2008, 04:13 PM
But that's not been the discussion in this thread. Arguments are being put forward claiming that those of us who think KW is a great GM, or, at least, is better than average, are way off -- because KW has one playoff appearance and one WS title in 7 years, therefore he's not a very good GM. Or at least not as good as others, like Billy Beane, who regularly make the post season, even though the A's have fared poorly in post season play.

KW is certainly not God, but he did accomplish something no other GM has done in Chicago in at least 2 lifetimes. That doesn't give him a pass, allowing me to support him in whatever he does. But I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and at least wait and see what happens as far as the 2008 team is concerned. After he traded away Carlos Lee for Scott Podsednik and a third tier reliever, I was incensed. The 2005 White Sox were going nowhere fast. To quote a phrase used here, things "looked bleak."

Those haven't been the point of my arguments. My only beef was summed up quite nicely here:


Originally Posted by fquaye149 http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1764714#post1764714)
In 2001 the A's had as good a team going into the playoffs as the White Sox did in 2005.

Jeter made a once in a lifetime play and the A's got knocked out of the first round.

It's not like I love Beane, but to act like he just has these gimmicky "only built to win in the regular season" teams is kind of silly

I never veiwed it as a Beane vs. Williams. I don't see the point in that. If Beane's bosses are happy with his job performance and Kenny's bosses are happy with his, then what difference does it make? I'm sure Beane thinks he's better and Kenny thinks he's better.

JNS
01-06-2008, 04:35 PM
You say winning the WS is irrelevant to the discussion. I say it matters a ton. I'd rather get to the playoffs once every 7 years with a good chance of winning it all than limp in like Oakland and Atlanta for a long period of time and have mostly heartbreak to show for it.

There are those who claim that winning in the playoffs is mostly luck. I will point to last year's World Series as exactly why that argument is full of crap. Boston was clearly better than Colorado in all aspects of the game.

Build to win a championship and hope you make it through the marathon that is every regular season where so many things can effect playoff contention (injuries, sub-par years, bad bounces, etc.). Then when you do make the playoffs, you are ready to win it all.

Fine - we can agree to disagree on that. It's part of what informs our differing opinions of KW.

But you haven't addressed my response to your original point about Zimmer (or Frye or whoever) getting run out of town as that would relate to the [theoretical] firing of KW.

I think winning in the playoffs is not so much "luck" as it is part of the ebb and flow of teams during a very, very long season. The Sox got really hot in late September, after being really cold in early September (and late August) and never looked back. if the Sox had been hot in August and September and waltzed into the division, as they did in 93 and 83, and then gotten cold, it would have been a different story.

The GM CANNOT effect whether his team is hot or not at a given point in the season, ergo, winning the WS is to my mind completely irrelevant to this discussion. But getting to the post-season is totally relevant. OK, we are using different criteria, but you have to show me how your criteria makes sense.

So, again, to me firing KW this year is not the same thing as running Jim Frye out of town.

JNS
01-06-2008, 04:53 PM
Those haven't been the point of my arguments. My only beef was summed up quite nicely here:

In 2001 the A's had as good a team going into the playoffs as the White Sox did in 2005.

Jeter made a once in a lifetime play and the A's got knocked out of the first round.

It's not like I love Beane, but to act like he just has these gimmicky "only built to win in the regular season" teams is kind of silly

Right - just like Pod's homer. There are a lot of moments that can turn momentum. Something as mundane as a foul ball can change everything.

So - and I think it will be difficult to refute this - the GM is not responsible for the winning of the WS. For getting into the post-season, sure, but after that it's kid of a crap-shoot.

The fact that Beane has not won a WS means the same thing regarding his performance as KW's team winning one: NOTHING.

NOW - if KW kept on getting back to the WS, that's something else.

I'll take Beane or Schurholz (sp) over KW any day, WS or not.

JNS
01-06-2008, 04:55 PM
Sounds good to me.

I'm just saying let's not hinge KW's gm-dom on his one WS, nor let's not hinge Beane's gm-dom on a lack of a WS title.

Let's actually realistically look at their accomplishments

Well put.

Daver
01-06-2008, 04:56 PM
Right - just like Pod's homer. There are a lot of moments that can turn momentum. Something as mundane as a foul ball can change everything.

So - and I think it will be difficult to refute this - the GM is not responsible for the winning of the WS. For getting into the post-season, sure, but after that it's kid of a crap-shoot.

The fact that Beane has not won a WS means the same thing regarding his performance as KW's team winning one: NOTHING.

NOW - if KW kept on getting back to the WS, that's something else.

I'll take Beane or Schurholz (sp) over KW any day, WS or not.

Then become an A's fan.


Problem solved.

batmanZoSo
01-06-2008, 05:00 PM
The A's had some bad luck being at their best while there were other teams who were spectacular, such as NY, Seattle and Arizona. They could've possibly went all the way if that Hudson, Mulder, Zito, Giambi team had been together in the period of 04-06.

batmanZoSo
01-06-2008, 05:45 PM
What do you mean? It's January 2005 and with the team we have all the "experts" are picking us for 4th place. How could they be wrong? Oh wait it's actually January 2008, I must have been sleeping for the last three years. In any case the experts are still picking us for 4th place. BTW how did things work out by the end of the 2005 season anyway?

BP picked us to go 72-90 last year.

Just sayin'.

Daver
01-06-2008, 05:53 PM
BP picked us to go 72-90 last year.

Just sayin'.

BP pegged the 2005 team at something like 75 wins.

Just sayin'.


BP can kiss my ass.

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 05:56 PM
BP pegged the 2005 team at something like 75 wins.

Just sayin'.


BP can kiss my ass.


I'd tend to agree with this. The Pecota predictions have, pretty much every year for the past 4-5 years, predicted the White Sox to finish around or below .500.

This shouldn't be respected any more than the fact that Mariotti "predicted" the 2007 White Sox would be lousy "because of JR's greed, Hawk's homerism, Kenny's stupidity, and Ozzie being such a Blizzard [whatever that means]"

batmanZoSo
01-06-2008, 06:00 PM
BP pegged the 2005 team at something like 75 wins.

Just sayin'.


BP can kiss my ass.

I agree, but 2005 comparisons can kiss all our asses with whip cream.

ode to veeck
01-06-2008, 06:02 PM
BP pegged the 2005 team at something like 75 wins.

Just sayin'.


BP can kiss my ass.

BP is about as reliable as Moronatti, i.e. little to do with actual reality

voodoochile
01-06-2008, 06:07 PM
I'd tend to agree with this. The Pecota predictions have, pretty much every year for the past 4-5 years, predicted the White Sox to finish around or below .500.

This shouldn't be respected any more than the fact that Mariotti "predicted" the 2007 White Sox would be lousy "because of JR's greed, Hawk's homerism, Kenny's stupidity, and Ozzie being such a Blizzard [whatever that means]"

Trying to predict wins and losses off of average stats for individual players is simply stupid. There are WAY too many variables that aren't even included in the available stats to actually try to do something like that. The model becomes insanely complex and it's just not feasible, at least not with the models they are using. It's the reason most of these predictions come with a standard deviation of like 10 games. By the time you get to 99% accuracy the numbers are so far apart it becomes so much meaningless noise. I mean if I told you last year in March that the Sox were going to win between 60 and 84 games you wouldn't exactly be asking me for lottery numbers.

Batman, go back and look at the reasons they predicted the Sox would win 72 games and compare them to the reasons it actually happened. It's a blind squirrel finding a nut is all it is. Pure random dumb chance.

batmanZoSo
01-06-2008, 06:13 PM
I'm not supporting BP, everyone knows their predictions are stupid. It's just that this team has a lot of holes and 05 has no bearing on anything whatsoever other than "the experts aren't always right."

Daver
01-06-2008, 06:16 PM
I'm not supporting BP, everyone knows their predictions are stupid. It's just that this team has a lot of holes and 05 has no bearing on anything whatsoever other than "the experts aren't always right."

The 05 team had a lot of holes and question marks before Soxfest too, that's all I'm saying.

All I'm doing is pointing out to all the doomsayers that are declaring the upcoming season as "Bleak" or "Hopeless" before spring training even starts that they may be less intelligent than worm larvae.

voodoochile
01-06-2008, 06:17 PM
I'm not supporting BP, everyone knows their predictions are stupid. It's just that this team has a lot of holes and 05 has no bearing on anything whatsoever other than "the experts aren't always right."

You're right and you're wrong...

2005 has no bearing on predicting what is going to happen in 2007.

However, 2005 should be a major part of evaluating the people who managed to assemble and then guide that team to the World Series (Why? BECAUSE IT'S A FREAKING WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, YOU KNUCKLEHEADS, that why!).

Why are Sox fans the only ones who don't get this point? I mean any other team in the world would be handing out 10 year guaranteed contracts and every fan would be jumping for joy that they did so. It certainly would take more than one injury plagued season two years later for that management team to get run out of town on a rail...

thedudeabides
01-06-2008, 06:17 PM
Did Bonderman and Robertson need more work in the Tigers system? Or did they hit the big club right away?

Bonderman was traded in July 2002 and started 2003 with the big club.

Robertson made his big league debut with the Marlins in 2002 and then was traded to the Tigers prior to the 2003 season. So, not much minor league development with the Tigers.

voodoochile
01-06-2008, 06:21 PM
Bonderman was traded in July 2002 and started 2003 with the big club.

Robertson made his big league debut with the Marlins in 2002 and then was traded to the Tigers prior to the 2003 season. So, not much minor league development with the Tigers.

Yeah, you don't go from ~$50M in payroll to ~$150M in payroll in 4 years because you developed a ton of talent...

http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/teamresults.aspx?team=6

Unregistered
01-06-2008, 06:25 PM
I'm not supporting BP, everyone knows their predictions are stupid. It's just that this team has a lot of holes and 05 has no bearing on anything whatsoever other than "the experts aren't always right."


Yes, 2005 has nothing to do with this current team. Which is why it's maddening to me to see people say "People said we wouldn't win it all in 2005, either!"

I guess that means we should go into the season with a bunch of question marks and our fingers crossed because we won it all in 2005.

Unregistered
01-06-2008, 06:32 PM
You're right and you're wrong...

2005 has no bearing on predicting what is going to happen in 2007.

However, 2005 should be a major part of evaluating the people who managed to assemble and then guide that team to the World Series (Why? BECAUSE IT'S A FREAKING WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, YOU KNUCKLEHEADS, that why!).

Right, and the team KW and the management assembled where guys like Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte were world beaters and pitchers with 5.50 ERAs the year before pitched like Cy Young winners and we caught every break in the world pretty much the entire season was fully in KW's plans, I'm sure.

I hate to minimize 2005, but KW was a hell of a lot more lucky than good in assembling that team, considering all the career years put up that season. Unless KW can see the future, it seems like he's hoping to be as insanely lucky as he was in 05 in terms of getting career years out of his new guys. That's not a great way to assemble a winning team, IMO.

Brian26
01-06-2008, 06:41 PM
BP pegged the 2005 team at something like 75 wins.

Just sayin'.


BP can kiss my ass.

:farmer
"Maybe if some of these guys showed up and watched us during Spring Training, their opinion might be different. That's all I'm saying."

batmanZoSo
01-06-2008, 06:44 PM
The 05 team had a lot of holes and question marks before Soxfest too, that's all I'm saying.

All I'm doing is pointing out to all the doomsayers that are declaring the upcoming season as "Bleak" or "Hopeless" before spring training even starts that they may be less intelligent than worm larvae.

You're right and you're wrong...

2005 has no bearing on predicting what is going to happen in 2007.

However, 2005 should be a major part of evaluating the people who managed to assemble and then guide that team to the World Series (Why? BECAUSE IT'S A FREAKING WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP, YOU KNUCKLEHEADS, that why!).

Why are Sox fans the only ones who don't get this point? I mean any other team in the world would be handing out 10 year guaranteed contracts and every fan would be jumping for joy that they did so. It certainly would take more than one injury plagued season two years later for that management team to get run out of town on a rail...

The 2005 team had 5 legit starters. The only surprise was Garland and in some ways it really wasn't surprising.

This team is coming off 1.5 years of poor play with a lot more holes than 2005. On top of that, the division is a hell of a lot tougher now and so are the best teams in the other divisions. Boston, Anaheim and New York are all better now than they were then, and again, so are Cleveland and Detroit.

Now if just that phony Bonerko trade goes through, we can almost think about contending seriously. So I don't think this season is hopeless yet.

Of course I give them credit for the WS but I'm not into blind faith. The org is a wreck right now.

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 06:45 PM
Right, and the team KW and the management assembled where guys like Neal Cotts and Cliff Politte were world beaters and pitchers with 5.50 ERAs the year before pitched like Cy Young winners and we caught every break in the world pretty much the entire season was fully in KW's plans, I'm sure.

I hate to minimize 2005, but KW was a hell of a lot more lucky than good in assembling that team, considering all the career years put up that season. Unless KW can see the future, it seems like he's hoping to be as insanely lucky as he was in 05 in terms of getting career years out of his new guys. That's not a great way to assemble a winning team, IMO.

Wrong. What Kenny Williams did well in 2005 was take people who had the talent to succeed and put them in a position to succeed. Luckily for him (and us) they did. That doesn't mean it was luck that got him the title. It was a willingness to rely on a certain amount of luck and a willingness to live or die by project players.

He got away from that model in 2006 with debatble success (only three major roster moves were the "give these talented players a chance" model--Thornton, Anderson and Vazquez) and returned to it in 2007.

It's clear that's what he's sticking with in 08, and though I think that success in 08 will require an astronomically higher amount of luck, I don't think it's fair to chalk up Kenny's success in 05 to much else but an intelligent mid-range market strategy for success that paid off big time.

champagne030
01-06-2008, 06:46 PM
I'm not supporting BP, everyone knows their predictions are stupid. It's just that this team has a lot of holes and 05 has no bearing on anything whatsoever other than "the experts aren't always right."

The 2008 White Sox, at this time, probably have a better offense than the 2005 team, but they cannot pitch or defend anywhere close to what that team had coming into the season. And nobody in our division was as good as Cleveland or Detroit will be coming into this season. We are a stud starting pitcher and reliable reliever away from having a legit shot at getting to the playoffs this season. Get to work Kenny or trading our prospects will be for naught.......

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 06:47 PM
Trying to predict wins and losses off of average stats for individual players is simply stupid. There are WAY too many variables that aren't even included in the available stats to actually try to do something like that. The model becomes insanely complex and it's just not feasible, at least not with the models they are using. It's the reason most of these predictions come with a standard deviation of like 10 games. By the time you get to 99% accuracy the numbers are so far apart it becomes so much meaningless noise. I mean if I told you last year in March that the Sox were going to win between 60 and 84 games you wouldn't exactly be asking me for lottery numbers.

Batman, go back and look at the reasons they predicted the Sox would win 72 games and compare them to the reasons it actually happened. It's a blind squirrel finding a nut is all it is. Pure random dumb chance.

I believe their reasoning was "declining stats from aging players" and "unreliable arms in the rotation and bullpen"

Not that I'm backing them up, but that is a fair assessment. However, that was more or less their assessment in 2005 too, so they can go stick it

Unregistered
01-06-2008, 06:49 PM
It's clear that's what he's sticking with in 08, and though I think that success in 08 will require an astronomically higher amount of luck, I don't think it's fair to chalk up Kenny's success in 05 to much else but an intelligent mid-range market strategy for success that paid off big time.
OK, maybe that's a less crude way of saying what I posted before. But to act like 2005 shows we're in just as good a position to win it all now as we did then is ridiculous.

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 06:53 PM
OK, maybe that's a less crude way of saying what I posted before. But to act like 2005 shows we're in just as good a position to win it all now as we did then is ridiculous.

I agree with you on that....but I'm talking about evaluating Kenny as a GM, not evaluating this team going into 08.

I'm in agreement that 08 is bad news for us in terms of competing (though I am amazed, supposing the Bonerko rumors are true, at how much Kenny has been able to close the gap and improve the team using pieces I thought were worth much less than they seem to be).

However, I don't think we should downplay 2005 at all in terms of Kenny's accomplishments. Looking back, it may be tempting to talk about how flukey it was, but frankly, I think the seasons before and after when we DIDN'T win it all were more flukey in terms of the talent KW assembled and the result.

That team in 2004 was badass, and fluke injuries to our two best hitters is what it took to ground us. In 06, flukey-bad years from our pitching and terrible dropoffs by two key bullpen contributors were what it took to have us NARROWLY miss the playoffs

schmitty9800
01-06-2008, 06:57 PM
Trying to predict wins and losses off of average stats for individual players is simply stupid. There are WAY too many variables that aren't even included in the available stats to actually try to do something like that. The model becomes insanely complex and it's just not feasible, at least not with the models they are using. It's the reason most of these predictions come with a standard deviation of like 10 games. By the time you get to 99% accuracy the numbers are so far apart it becomes so much meaningless noise. I mean if I told you last year in March that the Sox were going to win between 60 and 84 games you wouldn't exactly be asking me for lottery numbers.

Batman, go back and look at the reasons they predicted the Sox would win 72 games and compare them to the reasons it actually happened. It's a blind squirrel finding a nut is all it is. Pure random dumb chance.

Did you know that the 2007 BP predictions got every division winner and most of the divisions in order? If you don't like how they're done that's fine, but they're usually dead on.

Not to mention that in 2005 we should've won fewer games than the Indians based on run differential, and our pitching staff got hot as hell in the playoffs.

Daver
01-06-2008, 07:04 PM
Did you know that the 2007 BP predictions got every division winner and most of the divisions in order? If you don't like how they're done that's fine, but they're usually dead on.

Not to mention that in 2005 we should've won fewer games than the Indians based on run differential, and our pitching staff got hot as hell in the playoffs.


That's why BP's predictions aren't worth the sweat off of a monkeys ass, you can't base the future on past performance.

Gavin
01-06-2008, 07:35 PM
That's why BP's predictions aren't worth the sweat off of a monkeys ass, you can't base the future on past performance.

It's ridiculous to think you can't at least factor future performance based on past performance in lieu of knowing what's going to happen in the future. Doesn't mean you'll be right, sure.

Daver
01-06-2008, 07:41 PM
It's ridiculous to think you can't at least factor future performance based on past performance in lieu of knowing what's going to happen in the future. Doesn't mean you'll be right, sure.

It's ridiculous to waste your time crunching numbers for an answer that has no basis in truth or reality, but knock yourself out.

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 07:46 PM
It's ridiculous to waste your time crunching numbers for an answer that has no basis in truth or reality, but knock yourself out.

So much of baseball is mental that a player's performance in the past really is only useful some of the time in terms of predicting future performance.

Furthermore, using runs scored and runs against as a way of predicting records is likewise flawed--look at the pythagoreans at the end of the year and see how the number of games a team "should" have won almost always differs by 5 games or so

Oblong
01-06-2008, 08:09 PM
Using stuff like PECOTA and the Pythagorean W-L variations and other more advanced SABR stuff is useful to detect trends but not useful for individual situations. I always equate it to blackjack theory. The best systems and methods work over time because it's just math. However they will not often work when you isolate the theory down to one night of play, and especially not in one round because anything can happen in that small amount of time period. But spread it over a few weeks or months and the good luck and bad luck will even out and the outcomes will revert to the stated percentages, most of the time.

Daver
01-06-2008, 08:13 PM
Using stuff like PECOTA and the Pythagorean W-L variations and other more advanced SABR stuff is useful to detect trends but not useful for individual situations. I always equate it to blackjack theory. The best systems and methods work over time because it's just math. However they will not often work when you isolate the theory down to one night of play, and especially not in one round because anything can happen in that small amount of time period. But spread it over a few weeks or months and the good luck and bad luck will even out and the outcomes will revert to the stated percentages, most of the time.

The Magic 8 ball can be right most of the time too. What's your point?

batmanZoSo
01-06-2008, 08:36 PM
So much of baseball is mental that a player's performance in the past really is only useful some of the time in terms of predicting future performance.


Konerko's '03 is probably the main, extreme example of that. No one could've ever predicted that meltdown and it never came close to happening again. But why? It was all mental. He was so bad he might have singlehandedly kept us out of the playoffs (if not him, Burly helped at least with his first half).

Grzegorz
01-06-2008, 08:40 PM
So much of baseball is mental that a player's performance in the past really is only useful some of the time in terms of predicting future performance.

Please define "some of the time".

Gavin
01-06-2008, 09:02 PM
The Magic 8 ball can be right most of the time too. What's your point?

A Magic 8 ball will not be right most of the time over time. You can be as stubborn as you want but sabermetrics are a better predictor than Davermetrics.

FarWestChicago
01-06-2008, 09:05 PM
Not to mention that in 2005 we should've won fewer games than the Indians based on run differential, and our pitching staff got hot as hell in the playoffs.2005 happened. Learn to deal with it. I can't believe BP and their sycophants are still trying to rewrite history and make it go away. :dunno:

voodoochile
01-06-2008, 09:09 PM
Did you know that the 2007 BP predictions got every division winner and most of the divisions in order? If you don't like how they're done that's fine, but they're usually dead on.

Not to mention that in 2005 we should've won fewer games than the Indians based on run differential, and our pitching staff got hot as hell in the playoffs.

First, define "most divisions in order" 4 out of 6? Second, did they get the WC's right? What about the pennant winners? I mean, let's go for broke here. If their model is that good, they should be able to predict a lot more than simply that the Royals are going to finish 5th in the ALC next year.

How many people posting on these forums could probably do the same thing.

Second, your second paragraph is one of the most ridiculous things I've read here in a long time. Put your propeller cap away and watch the games. ****ing statheads, give 'em an inch and they think they can predict future outcomes of baseball games. You do realize the number of factors that go into deciding a baseball game right? Might want to be careful, because if the wind shifts in the 5th inning of a 2 run game with the bases loaded and the #5 batter hitting it might cause the pitcher to unbalance during his delivery and float that changeup he is throwing...

Daver
01-06-2008, 09:18 PM
A Magic 8 ball will not be right most of the time over time. You can be as stubborn as you want but sabermetrics are a better predictor than Davermetrics.

Based on what?

I can watch a guy play and tell you whether or not he can catch and throw the ball, will sabermetrics tell you that after nine innings?

But please, continue to waste time crunching numbers that are destined to predict the future, and then crunching more numbers that tell you why what really happened was wrong. Proppelerheads amuse me to no end.

Gavin
01-06-2008, 09:26 PM
Based on what?

I can watch a guy play and tell you whether or not he can catch and throw the ball, will sabermetrics tell you that after nine innings?

But please, continue to waste time crunching numbers that are destined to predict the future, and then crunching more numbers that tell you why what really happened was wrong. Proppelerheads amuse me to no end.

I'll get back to you when I find the website that uses an 8-ball to predict numbers and we'll have a free for all between your anecdotes, the blue triangle, and the "propellerheads".

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 09:43 PM
Please define "some of the time".

probably about 70-80% of the time :shrug:

Daver
01-06-2008, 09:48 PM
I'll get back to you when I find the website that uses an 8-ball to predict numbers and we'll have a free for all between your anecdotes, the blue triangle, and the "propellerheads".

Cool, you still won't know if they can catch and throw the ball though.

Oblong
01-06-2008, 09:52 PM
Based on what?

I can watch a guy play and tell you whether or not he can catch and throw the ball, will sabermetrics tell you that after nine innings?


It's not supposed to. Nobody who considers them a student of sabermetrics will ever make a conclusion after nine innings. They don't even like to do it after a season. And the naked eye can't do it either. The difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is one hit per week. You wouldn't be able to detect that unless you used stats.

Baseball history is full of five tool flameouts, guys who scouts looked at and said they just knew from watching.

Two Tiger examples to show how full of **** both sides can be: Late 90's, Gabe Kapler was Minor League Player of the Year. Scouts loved him. He had the body, the walk, the attitude... the stat guys were more skeptical. They saw trends they didn't like. Fast forward to 2004. Tigers claim Chris Shelton from Pittsburgh in the rule 5 and keep him on the team all year. Stat guys love him, he put up all the right numbers. Scouts hated him. He was fat, slow, no position. Each player had decent success at first and each side claimed to be vindicated. Now Kapler's just back from Japan and Shelton's off with the Padres or something, not even warranting a september callup with the Tigers. Point is, nobody really knows. No theory is airtight.

My point about using things like PECOTA the right way was that you should use it in conjuction with other analysis. Only an idiot would look at it and say "Hey, the Yankees are projected to win 98 games, I better put $200 down on them". But if you looked at it and noticed that one division had decent projections then you could say "Hey, the AL West may not be that bad this year".

Nothing that attempts to predict the future can be 100%.

fquaye149
01-06-2008, 09:55 PM
It's not supposed to. Nobody who considers them a student of sabermetrics will ever make a conclusion after nine innings. They don't even like to do it after a season. And the naked eye can't do it either. The difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is one hit per week. You wouldn't be able to detect that unless you used stats.

Baseball history is full of five tool flameouts, guys who scouts looked at and said they just knew from watching.

Two Tiger examples to show how full of **** both sides can be: Late 90's, Gabe Kapler was Minor League Player of the Year. Scouts loved him. He had the body, the walk, the attitude... the stat guys were more skeptical. They saw trends they didn't like. Fast forward to 2004. Tigers claim Chris Shelton from Pittsburgh in the rule 5 and keep him on the team all year. Stat guys love him, he put up all the right numbers. Scouts hated him. He was fat, slow, no position. Each player had decent success at first and each side claimed to be vindicated. Now Kapler's just back from Japan and Shelton's off with the Padres or something, not even warranting a september callup with the Tigers. Point is, nobody really knows. No theory is airtight.

My point about using things like PECOTA the right way was that you should use it in conjuction with other analysis. Only an idiot would look at it and say "Hey, the Yankees are projected to win 98 games, I better put $200 down on them". But if you looked at it and noticed that one division had decent projections then you could say "Hey, the AL West may not be that bad this year".

Nothing that attempts to predict the future can be 100%.


Baseball's also full of prospies with great OBP's, pitches/plate appearance, k/bb, k/9 etc. who flamed out

The tools should be used in conjunction with each other, I guess, but I'll lean much much much closer toward scouting since things like defense and pitching are, imo, very difficult to quantify statistically.

Hitting is, imo, relatively easy to quantify statistically, but that means little to me, since hitting has always been a pretty big no-brainer in terms of evaluation

Daver
01-06-2008, 10:17 PM
It's not supposed to. Nobody who considers them a student of sabermetrics will ever make a conclusion after nine innings. They don't even like to do it after a season. And the naked eye can't do it either. The difference between a .275 hitter and a .300 hitter is one hit per week. You wouldn't be able to detect that unless you used stats.


I'll break this down even further, I don't care if he hits .275 or .300, does he get a hit when it matters? If he does the rest goes out the window. Can he lay down a bunt when it is needed? Can he hit to advance the runner? Is he coachable? What are the stats for that?

champagne030
01-06-2008, 10:28 PM
Can he lay down a bunt when it is needed?

Let's use Konerko for this example.

Answer #1 is No.

Can he hit to advance the runner?

When he feels like it.

Is he coachable?

Probably not....he's going to do what he wants to do.

Oblong
01-06-2008, 10:28 PM
His ability to hit when it matters and to advance runners is probably directly proportional to whether he hits .275 or .300. He'll do it 27.5% or 30% of the time.

Daver
01-06-2008, 10:51 PM
His ability to hit when it matters and to advance runners is probably directly proportional to whether he hits .275 or .300. He'll do it 27.5% or 30% of the time.

Probably ain't real exact science.

Brian26
01-06-2008, 11:51 PM
Let's use Konerko for this example.

Is he coachable?

Probably not....he's going to do what he wants to do.

I disagree with that. It's pretty common knowledge that Walker rebuilt Konerko's swing, and Konerko pretty much listens to everything Walker says. One of the complaints about Walker, in fact, is that he spends too much time with the veterans on the team and not enough with the rookies.

Brian26
01-06-2008, 11:57 PM
Konerko's '03 is probably the main, extreme example of that. ...He was so bad he might have singlehandedly kept us out of the playoffs

I'd attribute that to Koch's meltdown, the lack of a solid fifth starter, and Jerry's Manuel's inept handling of the team down the stretch.

:firejerry

thedudeabides
01-07-2008, 04:34 AM
Probably ain't real exact science.

I think your point is lost. That's why I like baseball. There is so much that can never be measured. There are so many things that help a game, but don't look good.

Daver
01-07-2008, 01:24 PM
I think your point is lost. That's why I like baseball. There is so much that can never be measured. There are so many things that help a game, but don't look good.

No, you can't argue the truth.

cws05champ
01-07-2008, 02:05 PM
Can we re-name this thread: " Statheads vs Scouts" This time it counts!

Oblong
01-07-2008, 02:38 PM
I want to make clear that I'm not a stat head. I like some of the work and it's interesting but I take issue with a lot of the way they present their results and the way in which they treat situations that deviate from their projections. An example would be the use of the word luck or fluke. "Team A was lucky last year because they won 91 games and their run differential suggested 87". Nothing has to be "wrong" when things don't go the way the numbers suggest. It's still a team game that is very individualistic and those participants are human.

SBSoxFan
01-07-2008, 03:29 PM
I want to make clear that I'm not a stat head.

Ok, Roger, and I bet you've never used PED's either.

ChiSoxPatF
01-07-2008, 03:48 PM
Is it just me or does this article miss the point? Kenny IS going younger, just not over-board, all-prospect young. Swisher is entering his prime and we have control over him until '11 (or '12 if we use his option).

Swisher, Quentin, Richar, Fields, Ramirez, Danks, Floyd, Broadway - all can be a nucleus to build around in the future while still filling positions to compete now alongside our veteran nucleus of Thome, Dye, Pierzynski, Konerko, Buehrle, and Vazquez. I think the moves Kenny has made after losing out on Hunter have shown that he is going for it now but also hedging his bets for the future.

voodoochile
01-07-2008, 04:01 PM
Is it just me or does this article miss the point? Kenny IS going younger, just not over-board, all-prospect young. Swisher is entering his prime and we have control over him until '11 (or '12 if we use his option).

Swisher, Quentin, Richar, Fields, Ramirez, Danks, Floyd, Broadway - all can be a nucleus to build around in the future while still filling positions to compete now alongside our veteran nucleus of Thome, Dye, Pierzynski, Konerko, Buehrle, and Vazquez. I think the moves Kenny has made after losing out on Hunter have shown that he is going for it now but also hedging his bets for the future.

I couldn't agree with you more. I hope the Sox can get something of value for Crede, sign Cabrera to a multi-year deal, let Quentin, Owens and Rameriz fight it out for the two open OF slots, move Dye to DH and Swisher to RF. Keep PK and dump Uribe.

Looking at 2008 if things break right, the Sox are going to be a darkhorse candidate for the playoffs with the potential to surprise people and even succeed in the playoffs (if Contreras bounces back - they'd have a primary starting 3 as good or better than most of the other potential playoff opponents). However, if this year doesn't work out perfectly, the Sox still have plenty to look forward to in 2009 and beyond. They are younger, cheaper, deeper and better than they were last year.

So, even if 2011 doesn't look so good because Gio and DLS are gone, the next 3 years look just fine...:tongue:

batmanZoSo
01-07-2008, 04:30 PM
Our draft pickings are slim though. We need to trade a few of those veterans for prospects. Cabrera at least will give us a comp pick down the road.

Tragg
01-07-2008, 05:20 PM
Our draft pickings are slim though. We need to trade a few of those veterans for prospects. Cabrera at least will give us a comp pick down the road.Hopefully one of our middle relievers will have a great first 1/2, then trade him in July as a "set up man". I love those moves - even if we're contending, it's a great move.
Maybe someone will be desperate in late March and give us something for Uribe.

Oblong
01-07-2008, 08:26 PM
Ok, Roger, and I bet you've never used PED's either.

WHAT'D YOU SAY??!?

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/topstory/clemens1024.jpg