PDA

View Full Version : KW speaks to New York Times


Sockinchisox
01-19-2008, 05:21 PM
Tries to sell them on the idea of why we'll be competitive this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/sports/baseball/20chass.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin

steely712
01-19-2008, 06:10 PM
It was a pretty good article, and I thought Kenny did a good job hyping us up for the upcoming season. The one thing that bothered me though, is his response to losing in 2006, he could not admit that it was a failure for us not making the playoffs again, he said sarcastically "if winning 90 games in one of the toughest divisions in baseball is a failure." But guess what Kenny, it was a failure, we didn't even make the playoffs, we did not accomplish anything that we set out to do, that in my book is considered failure.

cards press box
01-19-2008, 06:16 PM
The 2006 White Sox were an excellent team. If either Buerhle or Contreras did not have the drop-off in the 2nd half that both had, the Sox would likely have won 5 or 6 more games and made the playoffs.

hi im skot
01-19-2008, 06:32 PM
It was a pretty good article, and I thought Kenny did a good job hyping us up for the upcoming season. The one thing that bothered me though, is his response to losing in 2006, he could not admit that it was a failure for us not making the playoffs again, he said sarcastically "if winning 90 games in one of the toughest divisions in baseball is a failure." But guess what Kenny, it was a failure, we didn't even make the playoffs, we did not accomplish anything that we set out to do, that in my book is considered failure.

Disappointing? Yes.

Failure? No.

Corlose 15
01-19-2008, 06:35 PM
To me 2006 was a failure because they had the 2nd best record in the league at the break and something like a 7 game lead in the Wild Card and pissed it away the second half.

jabrch
01-19-2008, 07:24 PM
I'll take every 90 win season we can get. That means I probably got to see at least 30 Sox wins in person. That's a success in my book.

chisoxmike
01-19-2008, 07:49 PM
2006 was a complete, utter failure.

sox1970
01-19-2008, 07:51 PM
Finishing 34-43 in 2006, and going 72-90 in 2007--I'm ready to see a winning White Sox team again.

areilly
01-19-2008, 08:39 PM
Terrible article. The Sox' GM says he thinks they'll be better this year than they were last year. So what? What GM - even the ones that don't mean it - wouldn't say that when it's the New York Times calling?

Frontman
01-19-2008, 09:00 PM
An interesting read. I have to agree that I'll take 90 wins consistently every year, and make or break playoff appearances based on that.

In 2006, the better team won the division; 'nuff said. Could the Sox have done better? Yes, they had an additional 72 games they could of won.

But at the end of it, it was a winning season. While the results were the same as 2007; I know I felt a whole heck of a lot better about the Sox in the 2006 post season than I have felt this post-season.

Through the 2006 season, I was entertained by competitive baseball.

In 2007, I couldn't wait for the season to end.

But I will never consider a team that I root for that wins 90 games (and would of made the playoffs in almost any other division with 90 wins) a "failure."

TomBradley72
01-19-2008, 09:07 PM
Of course 2006 was a failure. We traded away Rowand, Gonzalez, C. Young, El Duque, Vizcaino all in the name of going for another ring. We didn't even make the post season.

KW sure sounds like a "spinmeister" these days and it undermines his credibility. Even though this isn't as bad as his statement that acquiring Carlos Quentin was one his four priorities for this offseason. That one is either bull**** or lunacy(if it's a true statement)...take your pick.

santo=dorf
01-19-2008, 09:32 PM
The NYT didn't say 2006 was a "failure." The article was talking about a decline from 2005.


But Williams rejected the idea that the team’s 2006 performance, which produced nine fewer victories than the championship season, represented a decline.
“I suppose it was if you call winning 90 games in one of the toughest divisions in the league a decline,” he said. “But if it were not for the wear and tear on the pitching staff from the year before, we might have matched the year before.”


KW, quit being trying to be tough. Going from 99 wins and a World Title to 90 wins and a third place finish is by definition a decline.

sox1970
01-19-2008, 09:35 PM
An interesting read. I have to agree that I'll take 90 wins consistently every year, and make or break playoff appearances based on that.

In 2006, the better team won the division; 'nuff said. Could the Sox have done better? Yes, they had an additional 72 games they could of won.

But at the end of it, it was a winning season. While the results were the same as 2007; I know I felt a whole heck of a lot better about the Sox in the 2006 post season than I have felt this post-season.

Through the 2006 season, I was entertained by competitive baseball.

In 2007, I couldn't wait for the season to end.

But I will never consider a team that I root for that wins 90 games (and would of made the playoffs in almost any other division with 90 wins) a "failure."

It was how they went 90-72 that was a failure and a complete disappointment. Starting the season 56-29, they should have walked into the playoffs. Basically 40-37 would have done it. Instead they go 34-43 and haven't recovered since.

voodoochile
01-19-2008, 09:57 PM
Of course 2006 was a failure. We traded away Rowand, Gonzalez, C. Young, El Duque, Vizcaino all in the name of going for another ring. We didn't even make the post season.

KW sure sounds like a "spinmeister" these days and it undermines his credibility. Even though this isn't as bad as his statement that acquiring Carlos Quentin was one his four priorities for this offseason. That one is either bull**** or lunacy(if it's a true statement)...take your pick.

LMAO!

Rowand would have brought more pie...

I think the 2006 failure had a LOT more to do with the starting pitching burning out from the stress of 2005 than it did with the loss of ANY of the people you are writing about. Yeah, Rowand would have helped, but would he have been enough? Probably not - especially once you factor in the loss of Thome's bat.

spiffie
01-19-2008, 09:58 PM
An interesting read. I have to agree that I'll take 90 wins consistently every year, and make or break playoff appearances based on that.
I wouldn't like that, considering 90 wins has been enough for an AL Central team to make the playoffs exactly one time in the last decade, and that was when MIN won the division in 2003. 90 wins might mean a season with more good days than bad ones, but it rarely means you get a chance to go for it all.

sox1970
01-19-2008, 10:02 PM
I wouldn't like that, considering 90 wins has been enough for an AL Central team to make the playoffs exactly one time in the last decade, and that was when MIN won the division in 2003. 90 wins might mean a season with more good days than bad ones, but it rarely means you get a chance to go for it all.

Agreed. 90 wins in the AL is nothing. You have to go into the season thinking 95.

spiffie
01-19-2008, 10:14 PM
Agreed. 90 wins in the AL is nothing. You have to go into the season thinking 95.
For an AL Central team to make the playoffs this decade they have needed:
2007 - 94 wins (wildcard)
2006 - 95 wins (wildcard)
2005 - 95 wins (wildcard)
2004 - 92 wins (division)
2003 - 90 wins (division)
2002 - 93 wins (wildcard)
2001 - 91 wins (division)
2000 - 91 wins (wildcard)

It is getting harder and harder to make the playoffs. 90 wins is just a recipe for a close but not quite these days.

nccwsfan
01-19-2008, 10:19 PM
Agreed. 90 wins in the AL is nothing. You have to go into the season thinking 95.

Agree with this- 95 wins should be the minimum goal for a team looking to make the postseason.

2006 was the most disappointing season I can remember as a Sox fan, but it was hardly a complete utter failure. 2007 was a complete utter failure, Hawk as GM and the late 80's were a complete utter failure.

It's Dankerific
01-19-2008, 11:37 PM
It's not just whether those people would have helped in 2006. Its that we traded away those players for a short term goal, winning the championship in 2006. If my options are to keep all those players or to trade them all with the same 2006 postseason result, I think you keep them all. And in that way, since there was no _actual_ postseason value from trading them, those moves were a failure.


LMAO!

Rowand would have brought more pie...

I think the 2006 failure had a LOT more to do with the starting pitching burning out from the stress of 2005 than it did with the loss of ANY of the people you are writing about. Yeah, Rowand would have helped, but would he have been enough? Probably not - especially once you factor in the loss of Thome's bat.

drewcifer
01-20-2008, 12:39 AM
What a **** article. I hate everything about it.

I wish I could get the wasted time back.

voodoochile
01-20-2008, 01:08 AM
It's not just whether those people would have helped in 2006. Its that we traded away those players for a short term goal, winning the championship in 2006. If my options are to keep all those players or to trade them all with the same 2006 postseason result, I think you keep them all. And in that way, since there was no _actual_ postseason value from trading them, those moves were a failure.

Yeah, and hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20 (Hey Napoleon, Waterloo will be a bad idea.) Name me a single person who thought the Sox were weaker after the trades during the 2005-6 off-season. That team was locked an loaded, it just wore out in the second half and I think most of it was due to the strain the starters put on their arms the previous year.

TheOldRoman
01-20-2008, 01:19 AM
For an AL Central team to make the playoffs this decade they have needed:
2007 - 94 wins (wildcard)
2006 - 95 wins (wildcard)
2005 - 95 wins (wildcard)
2004 - 92 wins (division)
2003 - 90 wins (division)
2002 - 93 wins (wildcard)
2001 - 91 wins (division)
2000 - 91 wins (wildcard)

It is getting harder and harder to make the playoffs. 90 wins is just a recipe for a close but not quite these days.
I believe the wildcards will have worse records gradually over the next few years. I think all of the bad teams in the AL are getting better. While the Twins are headed back into the ****ter for a few years, the Royals have a bright future. The Rangers at least have made good trades lately to get young talent. The Mariners are back out of the toilet, and the A's will probably be ready to compete a couple years from now. The Rays have a buttload of talent on offense, and a few really good pitchers. With McPhail in Balt, they might start becoming a real franchise again. Of course, some teams will regress, but I think the worst teams are going to be a lot better over the next few years. The AL will be a lot more competitive, and I think all the records will be closer to mediocre. In the NL, on the other hand, I could see a few 100 win records every year because it is so terrible from the middle to the bottom.

Frater Perdurabo
01-20-2008, 07:44 AM
I believe the wildcards will have worse records gradually over the next few years. I think all of the bad teams in the AL are getting better. While the Twins are headed back into the ****ter for a few years, the Royals have a bright future. The Rangers at least have made good trades lately to get young talent. The Mariners are back out of the toilet, and the A's will probably be ready to compete a couple years from now. The Rays have a buttload of talent on offense, and a few really good pitchers. With McPhail in Balt, they might start becoming a real franchise again. Of course, some teams will regress, but I think the worst teams are going to be a lot better over the next few years. The AL will be a lot more competitive, and I think all the records will be closer to mediocre. In the NL, on the other hand, I could see a few 100 win records every year because it is so terrible from the middle to the bottom.

Yes. Agreed. The AL is absolutely loaded. There are no patsies in the AL anymore, while the NL is full of AAA teams.

TomBradley72
01-20-2008, 10:08 AM
LMAO!

Rowand would have brought more pie...

I think the 2006 failure had a LOT more to do with the starting pitching burning out from the stress of 2005 than it did with the loss of ANY of the people you are writing about. Yeah, Rowand would have helped, but would he have been enough? Probably not - especially once you factor in the loss of Thome's bat.

My point was that KW was going for another ring in 2006 and aggressively traded talent to accomplish the goal....so to say 2006 wasn't a failure was b.s....

TomBradley72
01-20-2008, 10:09 AM
It's not just whether those people would have helped in 2006. Its that we traded away those players for a short term goal, winning the championship in 2006. If my options are to keep all those players or to trade them all with the same 2006 postseason result, I think you keep them all. And in that way, since there was no _actual_ postseason value from trading them, those moves were a failure.

Thank you.

TomBradley72
01-20-2008, 10:14 AM
Yeah, and hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20 (Hey Napoleon, Waterloo will be a bad idea.) Name me a single person who thought the Sox were weaker after the trades during the 2005-6 off-season. That team was locked an loaded, it just wore out in the second half and I think most of it was due to the strain the starters put on their arms the previous year.

This isn't an example of hindsight...the topic isn't the moves themselves..it's KW's assessment of the results. He says in the article that 2006 was not a failure....if you trade that much talent and the result is 90 wins and no post season appearance...then for that particular season he failed. He was aggressive and it didn't work...I don't fault him for that. I just wish he would stop sounding like he's running in the Illinois primary election and be a little more contrite in his assessment of his moves and the results.

santo=dorf
01-20-2008, 10:24 AM
This isn't an example of hindsight...the topic isn't the moves themselves..it's KW's assessment of the results. He says in the article that 2006 was not a failure....if you trade that much talent and the result is 90 wins and no post season appearance...then for that particular season he failed. He was aggressive and it didn't work...I don't fault him for that. I just wish he would stop sounding like he's running in the Illinois primary election and be a little more contrite in his assessment of his moves and the results.
Am I the only one who read the mother****er? :?: Where does he say that?

Do a control+F for failure and you won't find ****.


The topic was about a decline.

fquaye149
01-20-2008, 10:26 AM
Of course 2006 was a failure. We traded away Rowand, Gonzalez, C. Young, El Duque, Vizcaino all in the name of going for another ring. We didn't even make the post season.

KW sure sounds like a "spinmeister" these days and it undermines his credibility. Even though this isn't as bad as his statement that acquiring Carlos Quentin was one his four priorities for this offseason. That one is either bull**** or lunacy(if it's a true statement)...take your pick.

That's why it's a failure?

Because we traded away

a.) a CF who would have been gone for 2008 anyway in exchange for a perennial .400 OBP and 35+ HR machine who's still on the team
b.) a pitcher who we
i.) got back the next year for absolutely NOTHING
ii.) traded for Swisher
c.)an OF who has shown promise but no ability to hit for average in exchange for a front-of-the-rotation starter who is still on the team and making a very reasonable salary
d.)a guy who's pitched 300 innings since 2005 at around league average ERA
e.)a mediocre middle-reliever

You would rather have a roster going into 2008 that had Gio in the minors, Chris Young, No El Duque, No Rowand, No Vizcaino (all free agents) than Swisher, Thome and Vazquez?.......:?:

Frontman
01-20-2008, 10:30 AM
I wouldn't like that, considering 90 wins has been enough for an AL Central team to make the playoffs exactly one time in the last decade, and that was when MIN won the division in 2003. 90 wins might mean a season with more good days than bad ones, but it rarely means you get a chance to go for it all.

That's assuming that the Central's rosters don't suffer injuries, setback, players retire and not get replaced with lesser talent.

My point is that across baseball, 90 wins will get you in more often than not.

I'd personally would love a 120 win season, but that just doesn't happen.

fquaye149
01-20-2008, 10:33 AM
Yeah, and hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20 (Hey Napoleon, Waterloo will be a bad idea.) Name me a single person who thought the Sox were weaker after the trades during the 2005-6 off-season. That team was locked an loaded, it just wore out in the second half and I think most of it was due to the strain the starters put on their arms the previous year.

And that's not all! Those trades have made us significantly better for the 2008 season than if we hadn't made them.

The only thing those trades hurt us in is making us more awful in 2007, but we weren't about to do **** in 2007 anyway. Having Rowand would have maybe helped us win an extra couple of games. MAYBE....but that was good for what? Third place? Big ****ing whoop.

Having Chris Young would have been nice (I guess...although in May and June when he was hitting for ****, Ozzie probably would have just benched him) but not having Vazquez would have probably been a pretty big kick in the crotch to a team that lacked pitching anyway.

El Duque and Viz wouldn't have been on the team, and Gio wouldn't have been in the majors.

Oh and we wouldn't have had Thome. We would have MAYBE had Frank, although who can say.

I don't see how any of those trades have hurt us in the slightest

voodoochile
01-20-2008, 10:34 AM
My point was that KW was going for another ring in 2006 and aggressively traded talent to accomplish the goal....so to say 2006 wasn't a failure was b.s....

Yeah, but by that definition 29 teams failed that year including all but one of the eight that made the playoffs. Yes, it was a woulda', coulda', shoulda', season, but that's just the way the ball bounces sometimes.

Also, your definition of trading "talent" is a pretty loose one. None of the guys on that list are world beaters. Rowand or Young might have looked good in CF the last few seasons, but at the cost of our number 2 starter and/or Thome it doesn't really seem like a good idea.

The Sox failed to make the playoffs, but not for lack of trying or even for lack of talent. That's baseball. That's life...

fquaye149
01-20-2008, 10:36 AM
Am I the only one who read the mother****er? :?: Where does he say that?

Do a control+F for failure and you won't find ****.


The topic was about a decline.

No. I read it too. You're absolutely right...but of course you realize some people just love to grandstand about the trades they think were lousy, showing not only an unwillingness to read the article, but an inability to remember that the players we got in return have helped our team and that the players we lost would have mostly been gone anyway by now

fquaye149
01-20-2008, 10:38 AM
Yeah, but by that definition 29 teams failed that year including all but one of the eight that made the playoffs. Yes, it was a woulda', coulda', shoulda', season, but that's just the way the ball bounces sometimes.

Also, your definition of trading "talent" is a pretty loose one. None of the guys on that list are world beaters. Rowand or Young might have looked good in CF the last few seasons, but at the cost of our number 2 starter and/or Thome it doesn't really seem like a good idea.

The Sox failed to make the playoffs, but not for lack of trying or even for lack of talent. That's baseball. That's life...

some people will grasp at the tiniest straws imaginable to rip Kenny.

I can't believe people are saying trading a rookie who wouldn't be playing now anyway, a promising (but by no stretch of the imagination amazing) CF, and three players who would be gone anyway for what inevitably amounts to three key contributors for 2008 who are actually going to be on the team and going to almost certainly put up excellent numbers, is somehow a "failure"

TomBradley72
01-20-2008, 10:43 AM
Yeah, but by that definition 29 teams failed that year including all but one of the eight that made the playoffs. Yes, it was a woulda', coulda', shoulda', season, but that's just the way the ball bounces sometimes.

Also, your definition of trading "talent" is a pretty loose one. None of the guys on that list are world beaters. Rowand or Young might have looked good in CF the last few seasons, but at the cost of our number 2 starter and/or Thome it doesn't really seem like a good idea.

The Sox failed to make the playoffs, but not for lack of trying or even for lack of talent. That's baseball. That's life...

I didn't say they were bad moves.

I didn't say they didn't try.

I didn't say they didn't have the talent.

I said 90 wins and no post season appearance in 2006 was a failure.

Why does KW have to spin, spin, spin? Just call it for what it was...and move on. They traded way a top CF prospect, a CF who was an All Star in 2007, a top pitching prospect, a bullpen innings eater, and an aging starter who appeared to be washed up (but wasn't)...all in the name of "going for it now".

If you'd have asked KW before 2006...how he would assess 90 wins and no post season...I'll bet you a Falstaff, he would have said = failure.

sox1970
01-20-2008, 10:51 AM
There are degrees of failure. If a team like the Royals or Rays went .500, they would probably consider that a success.

For a team like the White Sox and most teams, it's either making the playoffs or NOT making the playoffs that defines success or failure.

In the 3 division/wildcard Era (1995-2007), making the playoffs only twice is not good. They should have at least made the playoffs a couple more times. Luckily they made the most of one of their appearances.

voodoochile
01-20-2008, 10:57 AM
If you'd have asked KW before 2006...how he would assess 90 wins and no post season...I'll bet you a Falstaff, he would have said = failure.

I actually agree with this post, so I'll let it drop. I think many people are tired of people throwing around emotionally charged words like "failure". I know that I am. It's been a rough run since July 2006 and the rhetoric has been becoming more and more emotionally charged and that is why I and others have jumped all over you. Your post made it seem you were blaming the failure on the loss of those players.

If you had said, "The Sox added Vazquez and Thome to an already loaded lineup and didn't make the playoffs, thus it was a failure of a season." You would have had a lot less arguments, but the minute you say, "the Sox traded away Rowand (et al) and were a failure when they didn't make the playoffs" you are going to catch some flak. :tongue:

In either case 2008 and beyond are looking better and that's just fine with me...

santo=dorf
01-20-2008, 11:00 AM
If you'd have asked KW before 2006...how he would assess 90 wins and no post season...I'll bet you a Falstaff, he would have said = failure.
That's your opinion, however I believe it has some legs.

Let see if we can find any quotes because we had this discussion before.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=79674

I had a great time this season - went to 37 games, and had a blast. Yeah, I wish we were still playing, but the team is still a good team. It's still well positioned for next year. It wasn't a WS win, but it was still a great season.

If you can't enjoy the game when you have a team that wins 90 games, then I'm sorry for you.

That said, no - it was not a success. It was fun - but not nearly as fun as last year.
I'll take every 90 win season we can get. That means I probably got to see at least 30 Sox wins in person. That's a success in my book.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

jabrch
01-20-2008, 11:30 AM
If you'd have asked KW before 2006...how he would assess 90 wins and no post season...I'll bet you a Falstaff, he would have said = failure.

I still don't understand why anyone would take anything he says seriously.

I'll stack up the 90 win seasons and be thrilled to death.

sox1970
01-20-2008, 11:47 AM
I'll stack up the 90 win seasons and be thrilled to death.

90 wins in the AL, you'll make the playoffs once a decade if you're lucky.

santo=dorf
01-20-2008, 11:57 AM
I still don't understand why anyone would take anything he says seriously.

I'll stack up the 90 win seasons and be thrilled to death.
So then why did you say the 2006 season wasn't a success?

fquaye149
01-20-2008, 12:08 PM
I didn't say they were bad moves.

I didn't say they didn't try.

I didn't say they didn't have the talent.

I said 90 wins and no post season appearance in 2006 was a failure.

Why does KW have to spin, spin, spin? Just call it for what it was...and move on. They traded way a top CF prospect, a CF who was an All Star in 2007, a top pitching prospect, a bullpen innings eater, and an aging starter who appeared to be washed up (but wasn't)...all in the name of "going for it now".

If you'd have asked KW before 2006...how he would assess 90 wins and no post season...I'll bet you a Falstaff, he would have said = failure.

I'd agree that in terms of our expectations (making the playoffs) and reality of 2006 (not making the playoffs) in the strictest sense of the terms, it was a failure.

However, Kenny never said it wasn't a failure. He said that 2006 wasn't a decline representative of why we had such a lousy 2007 and predictive of what will happen in 08. And to a certain extent, he was right....

Also, I take issue with your characterization of those trades. They WEREN'T just a go-for-it-now. They also helped us become a better team in the long-term.

If you notice, the two major players we acquired in those trades (Thome and Vazquez) are stil with us and still major contributors. Of the players we traded away only two would still be under contract (Gio and Young) and out of Gio (who we reacquired for absolutely NOTHING in Freddy Garcia) we got Swisher.

So the comparison between those trades in terms of long term value is: Swisher+Thome+Vazquez vs. Young+Gio.

If you really think that the latter group would be better for us in 2008 than the former group, then I guess you can make an argument that all those trades did in 2006 was help us in the short term.

But if you, like probably anyone with access to a TV or a stat sheet, think that the first group (swisher+thome+vazquez) is better, than I think it's pretty easy to see how those trades simply made sense and were excellent deals

spiffie
01-20-2008, 12:32 PM
That's assuming that the Central's rosters don't suffer injuries, setback, players retire and not get replaced with lesser talent.

My point is that across baseball, 90 wins will get you in more often than not.

I'd personally would love a 120 win season, but that just doesn't happen.
But IT DOESN'T get you in more often than not. In the American League, particularly teams that play in the AL Central, 90 wins has not been enough to make the playoffs. I don't care if 90 wins is enough to get you in the playoffs from the NL West. The White Sox don't play in the NL West. The only thing that matters is what it takes usually for the Sox to get in, and generally 90 wins is not enough. There is no difference practically between an 85 and a 90 win season except for five more days where we as fans got to be happy about the day's outcome.

Rounding_Third
01-20-2008, 12:33 PM
LMAO!



I think the 2006 failure had a LOT more to do with the starting pitching burning out from the stress of 2005 than it did with the loss of ANY of the people you are writing about. Yeah, Rowand would have helped, but would he have been enough? Probably not - especially once you factor in the loss of Thome's bat.

I couldn't agree more! Go through the last 25 years and find a WS team (winner or loser) who succeeded the following year with basically the same pitching staff. They are few, if any. I couldn't find them. The fact that we fizzled in the 2nd half proves the point even more. It was truly a "gutsy" effort, though. Maybe that was KW's error for not mixing in some fresh arms. His loyalty may have cost us but he can't be blamed. There were 2 hungry, fresh teams in Detroit & MN led by 2 great managers.

kaufsox
01-20-2008, 12:43 PM
the collective WSI schizophrenia on display. A debate as to whether a 90 win season is a success without a playoff appearance, and yet bring up the Oakland A's and their post season appearances, and a great number of members here call Billy Beane a failure for not winning a World Series. I guess measures of success depend on who is being measured. FWIW, I was disappointed in 2006 because I expected so much more, but my measure success and failure is kind of personal. If the Sox are playing meaningful baseball in September, I feel like the season was a success, though disappointment often results by Oct. 1.

wilburaga
01-20-2008, 12:53 PM
I don't know how the venerable Mr. Chass got through an article on the 2008 Sox without employing the words 'Crede' or 'Fields'.

W

santo=dorf
01-20-2008, 01:15 PM
the collective WSI schizophrenia on display. A debate as to whether a 90 win season is a success without a playoff appearance, and yet bring up the Oakland A's and their post season appearances, and a great number of members here call Billy Beane a failure for not winning a World Series. I guess measures of success depend on who is being measured. FWIW, I was disappointed in 2006 because I expected so much more, but my measure success and failure is kind of personal. If the Sox are playing meaningful baseball in September, I feel like the season was a success, though disappointment often results by Oct. 1.
Great point. Same thing goes with Terry Ryan, who rarely received ANY criticism here yet his team only won one playoff series.

champagne030
01-20-2008, 01:31 PM
So then why did you say the 2006 season wasn't a success?

:rolling:

He'll get back to you after he's done fetching Kenny's coffee.........

gosox41
01-20-2008, 01:35 PM
the collective WSI schizophrenia on display. A debate as to whether a 90 win season is a success without a playoff appearance, and yet bring up the Oakland A's and their post season appearances, and a great number of members here call Billy Beane a failure for not winning a World Series. I guess measures of success depend on who is being measured. FWIW, I was disappointed in 2006 because I expected so much more, but my measure success and failure is kind of personal. If the Sox are playing meaningful baseball in September, I feel like the season was a success, though disappointment often results by Oct. 1.

2006 was a disappointment because of the second half. If someone gteed the Sox would win 90 in 2008 I'd be thrilled. But in 2006 the Sox won 56 in the first half. The second half was bad. After winning 56 in the first half, playing under .500 the rest of the way to get to 90 is hardly a success.

The fact that the 2006 second half carried into 2007 worries me much more.


Bob

gosox41
01-20-2008, 01:37 PM
the collective WSI schizophrenia on display. A debate as to whether a 90 win season is a success without a playoff appearance, and yet bring up the Oakland A's and their post season appearances, and a great number of members here call Billy Beane a failure for not winning a World Series. I guess measures of success depend on who is being measured. FWIW, I was disappointed in 2006 because I expected so much more, but my measure success and failure is kind of personal. If the Sox are playing meaningful baseball in September, I feel like the season was a success, though disappointment often results by Oct. 1.

Excellent point on the WSI schizophrenia. Can't have it both ways.



Bob

voodoochile
01-20-2008, 02:18 PM
the collective WSI schizophrenia on display. A debate as to whether a 90 win season is a success without a playoff appearance, and yet bring up the Oakland A's and their post season appearances, and a great number of members here call Billy Beane a failure for not winning a World Series. I guess measures of success depend on who is being measured. FWIW, I was disappointed in 2006 because I expected so much more, but my measure success and failure is kind of personal. If the Sox are playing meaningful baseball in September, I feel like the season was a success, though disappointment often results by Oct. 1.

These are not even close to the same form of evaluation. Beane gets judged good or bad over his long term track record for the performance of his team, which isn't the same thing as evaluation how a single season team performed.

Beane deserves both praise and condemnation for the way he has worked inside a budget and gotten solid regular season results, but not managed to build a team that won it all (for whatever reason). The reason he gets hammered so hard is because someone wrote a book on how great a GM he is and used KW as the whipping boy in that book even though KW has now gone on to win the ultimate prize while Beane is rebuilding his minors for the umpteenth time in the hopes he can finally squeeze out a winner in years to come before he trades everyone off again.

However, again, evaluating the success or failure of the 2006 Sox is not the same thing. Yes, evaluating the moves that the team's GM made or didn't make is always part of evaluating a single season of that team's history, but it's only part of the equation. For example, most people would evaluate KW's off-season moves following the WS win as good ones, making strong areas even stronger (SP) while filling a major need (LH power bat DH) and mostly for the cost of people who looked to be replaceable. The fact the team failed had little to do with the moves in question and more to do with burnout and fatigue.

However, by mentioning Beane, you've managed to ensure another 100 posts in this thread, so at least you got that going for you...:tongue:

oldcomiskey
01-20-2008, 04:51 PM
2006 was a complete, utter failure.
Mike, I disagree with that on two fronts. First. If Minnesota hadnt have had a great second half, the likes of which have rarely been seen, the Sox make the playoffs easily. Secondly the same for Detroit in the first half. IIRC, Detroit had a huge lead over the Twins and Minnesota came back to win the division

spiffie
01-20-2008, 06:14 PM
However, again, evaluating the success or failure of the 2006 Sox is not the same thing. Yes, evaluating the moves that the team's GM made or didn't make is always part of evaluating a single season of that team's history, but it's only part of the equation. For example, most people would evaluate KW's off-season moves following the WS win as good ones, making strong areas even stronger (SP) while filling a major need (LH power bat DH) and mostly for the cost of people who looked to be replaceable. The fact the team failed had little to do with the moves in question and more to do with burnout and fatigue.
One thing that does need to be laid at KW's feet for 2006 is that he did not adequately fill the bullpen holes post 2005. We lost Vizcaino, Marte, and Hermanson from that team's bullpen. We tried to fill those spots with McCarthy, Logan, and Thornton. How much different does 2006 turn out if there are some more dependable arms to try and pick up the slack from Politte and Cotts? He gambled on 4 very green players with no real backup plan that year (BA, Logan, McCarthy, Thornton) and in 3 of those cases they failed in most respects. I don't dispute the moves he made. I just think some of the moves he didn't make were able to be criticized both at the time and in retrospect.

Frater Perdurabo
01-20-2008, 10:31 PM
One thing that does need to be laid at KW's feet for 2006 is that he did not adequately fill the bullpen holes post 2005. We lost Vizcaino, Marte, and Hermanson from that team's bullpen. We tried to fill those spots with McCarthy, Logan, and Thornton. How much different does 2006 turn out if there are some more dependable arms to try and pick up the slack from Politte and Cotts? He gambled on 4 very green players with no real backup plan that year (BA, Logan, McCarthy, Thornton) and in 3 of those cases they failed in most respects. I don't dispute the moves he made. I just think some of the moves he didn't make were able to be criticized both at the time and in retrospect.

Yes, the bullpen went from a strength in 2005 to a weakness in 2006. But that also was a function of the starting pitching regressing in 2006, too. When Contreras and especially Buehrle struggled, it put more pressure on the weakened bullpen to throw more innings.

The best bullpens usually are those that are used least.

jabrch
01-20-2008, 10:42 PM
90 wins in the AL, you'll make the playoffs once a decade if you're lucky.


I don't care. I really don't give a damn. To me, baseball isn't simply about WS wins or about post season series wins, or about making the playoffs. Long before any of that meant anything to me, I had a love of the game. I love watching the game - and I love watching the Sox play it. If they win 90 games, that means that I had a damn good summer. Anything else - gravy.

If the game is all about winning the WS to you (not you Sox1970 - but everyone) then I'm sorry that you see failure so often. To me, each game I watch is a new game - and I am thrilled to see White Sox Winners.

nccwsfan
01-20-2008, 10:50 PM
I don't care. I really don't give a damn. To me, baseball isn't simply about WS wins or about post season series wins, or about making the playoffs. Long before any of that meant anything to me, I had a love of the game. I love watching the game - and I love watching the Sox play it. If they win 90 games, that means that I had a damn good summer. Anything else - gravy.

If the game is all about winning the WS to you (not you Sox1970 - but everyone) then I'm sorry that you see failure so often. To me, each game I watch is a new game - and I am thrilled to see it White Sox Winners.

jabrch,

:gulp:

Fantastic point of view. I'm as excited about 2008 as I have been for any other season, and if they make the playoffs it's only more reason to get excited.

sox1970
01-21-2008, 01:36 AM
I don't care. I really don't give a damn. To me, baseball isn't simply about WS wins or about post season series wins, or about making the playoffs. Long before any of that meant anything to me, I had a love of the game. I love watching the game - and I love watching the Sox play it. If they win 90 games, that means that I had a damn good summer. Anything else - gravy.

If the game is all about winning the WS to you (not you Sox1970 - but everyone) then I'm sorry that you see failure so often. To me, each game I watch is a new game - and I am thrilled to see White Sox Winners.

I would acknowledge that a 90 win team is a very good team, but I'm simply pointing out that in the AL, a 90 win team won't make the playoffs very often. The fact of the matter is that in the 3 division/wildcard era, the Royals have never made the playoffs; the Tigers once. The other 12 years, the Indians have 7 playoffs appearances, the Twins 4 playoffs years, and the Sox twice. Two times in 13 years kinda sucks. Luckily the Sox won it all in one of those years, but I'd like to see them make the playoffs more often.

roadrunner
01-21-2008, 10:26 AM
Yeah, and hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20

= pointless, overused, misused cliche inserted into posts to rebuff any comment not aligned with one's own views

jabrch
01-21-2008, 10:43 AM
but I'd like to see them make the playoffs more often.

Everyone can agree with that statement. But at the same time, for people (not you necesarily) to categories a season as a failure because you don't make the post season or win it all is over the top.

In my eyes, it is not binary. It is not "one team succeeds and the rest fail"

Lots of teams succeed. Some teams have ok seasons. Others fail. To me, 2006 was an OK season. I had a blast, saw lots of wins and got to celebrate 2005 in style. That's not a failure.

Worse than that is the need some have to find blame for anything they perceive as a failure. It breeds the culture of the know-it-all arm chair GMs that are out there who know that Williams is dumb. Bowden is an idiot. Bavassi is a fool. etc. It is one thing to disagree with someone's approach - heck - I have done that with a bunch of GMs. But it is another thing to go blaming a GM for a 90 win season calling it a failure and saying it is his fault, and for saying that Joe Fan would do any better.

To me, last season was the first real failure this franchise has had since 1989 and only the second in my (baseball watching) lifetime. I'm 36, so let's say I really didn't watch baseball until the Larussa era started in 1980. Yes - I have only seen 4 teams make the post season. But I have seen an awful lot of very good baseball during that time. I've had a hell of a lot of fun at the park with family and friends. Failure...my ass.

batmanZoSo
01-21-2008, 10:59 AM
Failure is relative. The '90 Sox won 90 games and that team is fondly remembered. The '77 team won less games and is immortal in Sox lore. The '07 team was disappointing and another WS was well within reach if they hadn't tailed off at the end. But it was a good, fun season for the most part and the disappointment was at least slightly obscured by the victory lap feel and the WS hangover.

As for KW, this is how he is, deal with it. We should all know him by now and it doesn't really matter how he views past seasons. If he doesn't share the exact same opinions as you, move on.

voodoochile
01-21-2008, 11:03 AM
= pointless, overused, misused cliche inserted into posts to rebuff any comment not aligned with one's own views

Well, if someone is going to say something that is obvious in hindsight and not obvious at the time the season started, then it deserves to be said.

Just curious what you thought of the actual content of the post you grabbed that snippet from. Here it is...

Originally Posted by voodoochile http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1774781#post1774781)
Yeah, and hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20 (Hey Napoleon, Waterloo will be a bad idea.) Name me a single person who thought the Sox were weaker after the trades during the 2005-6 off-season. That team was locked an loaded, it just wore out in the second half and I think most of it was due to the strain the starters put on their arms the previous year.


I bolded an underlined the analysis section of the post, so you won't get confused as to what I am referring to...

johnr1note
01-21-2008, 11:03 AM
These are not even close to the same form of evaluation. Beane gets judged good or bad over his long term track record for the performance of his team, which isn't the same thing as evaluation how a single season team performed.

Beane deserves both praise and condemnation for the way he has worked inside a budget and gotten solid regular season results, but not managed to build a team that won it all (for whatever reason). The reason he gets hammered so hard is because someone wrote a book on how great a GM he is and used KW as the whipping boy in that book even though KW has now gone on to win the ultimate prize while Beane is rebuilding his minors for the umpteenth time in the hopes he can finally squeeze out a winner in years to come before he trades everyone off again.

However, again, evaluating the success or failure of the 2006 Sox is not the same thing. Yes, evaluating the moves that the team's GM made or didn't make is always part of evaluating a single season of that team's history, but it's only part of the equation. For example, most people would evaluate KW's off-season moves following the WS win as good ones, making strong areas even stronger (SP) while filling a major need (LH power bat DH) and mostly for the cost of people who looked to be replaceable. The fact the team failed had little to do with the moves in question and more to do with burnout and fatigue.

However, by mentioning Beane, you've managed to ensure another 100 posts in this thread, so at least you got that going for you...:tongue:

The accusation of "collective WSI schizophrenia" is pretty shallow. There is a diverse range of opinion here, ranging from those who think KW should be made a patron saint, knighted, and worshiped, to those who think he should be run out of town on a rail for the performance of the 2007 team.

As for Billy Beane, I react to the devotion of the FOB crowd because he is, at least according to "Moneyball," a freaking genius who knows how to build a team on a budget, but he has yet to win a pennant. He himself admits that his way of building a team does not factor in post season success, and that he feels the post season is just a crapshoot. I have argued that I think this is is copout on his part -- while post season success is never a lock, a team that consistently wins divisions but can't advance in the playoffs should do something to get over the hump and succeed. Truly great teams make that happen. Billy Beane has not been able to make that happen. This does not take away from his ability to field a competitive team on a budget -- I just don't think he derserves all the accolades some folks on this board are willing to give him in the form of worship.

KW has also made his share of goofs in trying to evaluate talent and build winning teams. But he has one thing over Mr. Beane -- and no matter what you say, the trophy does mean something.

balke
01-21-2008, 11:10 AM
Yes indeed, 100 posts coming.

I just wanted to say:

No one remembers who was in the playoffs. They remember let downs from teams who should've won the World Series, and World Series winners.


Billy Beane's teams make the playoffs, but I don't remember any of them being World Series favs or winners. If he ended his run tomorrow, his style of GM'ing would be a model to take note of when making decisions to rebuild a bad team, but it would not be a model of success.

KW in his tenure has taken the team with one of the longest World Series droughts ever and taken them all the way.

That is much more impressive IMO, then acquiring talent and losing in the first round of the playoffs year in and year out wondering "What if I would've just payed one or two more players to push this team over the top?"

I will say the playoffs are important to reach, and obviously a good achievement. You can't win a WS without getting to the playoffs. But, the legacy of getting there and falling short is not a great legacy to have.

chaerulez
01-21-2008, 11:11 AM
2006 was a complete, utter failure.

Mike, I completely agree with you. I can't believe people are actually saying a 90 win season without the playoffs is a success. The goal is to win a World Series. Every year the Sox get to the playoffs I am at least satisfied because getting into the playoffs, anything can happen. But as a fan, I want to see World Series titles. I want a Sox dynasty. Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I'm a fan of the White Sox, therefore I want to see the White Sox win as many titles as possible. A 90 win season isn't worth **** if you didn't make the playoffs. Yeah, we play in a tough divison, those that are also Bulls or Bears fans we have the luxury of playing in the weaker conference. That's just how it is.

chaerulez
01-21-2008, 11:17 AM
That's why it's a failure?

Because we traded away

a.) a CF who would have been gone for 2008 anyway in exchange for a perennial .400 OBP and 35+ HR machine who's still on the team
b.) a pitcher who we
i.) got back the next year for absolutely NOTHING
ii.) traded for Swisher
c.)an OF who has shown promise but no ability to hit for average in exchange for a front-of-the-rotation starter who is still on the team and making a very reasonable salary
d.)a guy who's pitched 300 innings since 2005 at around league average ERA
e.)a mediocre middle-reliever

You would rather have a roster going into 2008 that had Gio in the minors, Chris Young, No El Duque, No Rowand, No Vizcaino (all free agents) than Swisher, Thome and Vazquez?.......:?:

We should've just fielded the same team from 2005 into 2006. We might've only won 80 games at most, but hey it would've been "grinder/Ozzie" ball.

fquaye149
01-21-2008, 12:58 PM
Mike, I completely agree with you. I can't believe people are actually saying a 90 win season without the playoffs is a success. The goal is to win a World Series. Every year the Sox get to the playoffs I am at least satisfied because getting into the playoffs, anything can happen. But as a fan, I want to see World Series titles. I want a Sox dynasty. Maybe it's a pipe dream, but I'm a fan of the White Sox, therefore I want to see the White Sox win as many titles as possible. A 90 win season isn't worth **** if you didn't make the playoffs. Yeah, we play in a tough divison, those that are also Bulls or Bears fans we have the luxury of playing in the weaker conference. That's just how it is.

Ok...but then the Sox have had exactly 2 successful seasons in the past 10 years.

I don't believe that to be true. Seasons can be evaluated as successes or failures without the black/white bottom-line of "playoffs?" or "World champions?"

You should evaluate a season based on two things:

1.) How did the team do in terms of expectations, and how much did that outcome have to do with effort/performance and personnel preparation by the GM and how much did that outcome have to do with fluky things like injury and bad calls (bruce froemmig)/bounces/whatever

2.) How well did the season build the team for success in the following years

However, having said all that, we probably should say that 2006 was in many ways a failure--we performed poorly against expectations, and though I don't think that relatively poor performance was due to personnel moves, it certainly had much to do with a falling off in pitching performance and not fluky things like injuries.

Also it didn't seem to be a building season towards 2007...though I suppose that's debatable.

AT any rate, my point is that to say merely it wasn't a success because we didn't make the playoffs is a bit of an oversimplifcation.......

fquaye149
01-21-2008, 12:58 PM
We should've just fielded the same team from 2005 into 2006. We might've only won 80 games at most, but hey it would've been "grinder/Ozzie" ball.

HEY! that lineup was good enough for 2005, and you know what happened in 2005, don't you? I mean, we didn't know going into 2005, andyou know what happened in 2005 don't you?

I mean, you do know what happened in 2005 right?

roadrunner
01-21-2008, 02:20 PM
Yeah, and hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20 (Hey Napoleon, Waterloo will be a bad idea.) Name me a single person who thought the Sox were weaker after the trades during the 2005-6 off-season. That team was locked an loaded, it just wore out in the second half and I think most of it was due to the strain the starters put on their arms the previous year.

1. There are many fans that did not like that offseason.

2. I don't know if you can label a team with a gaping hole in CF as "locked and loaded."

3. If the team was "locked and loaded" it would not have worn out in the second half. I have to disagree with your strain on their arms theory. It sounds good but actually Buehrle pitched 3 potseason games, Contreras 3, and Garland 2. None on short rest.

chaerulez
01-21-2008, 02:29 PM
Ok...but then the Sox have had exactly 2 successful seasons in the past 10 years.

I don't believe that to be true. Seasons can be evaluated as successes or failures without the black/white bottom-line of "playoffs?" or "World champions?"

You should evaluate a season based on two things:

1.) How did the team do in terms of expectations, and how much did that outcome have to do with effort/performance and personnel preparation by the GM and how much did that outcome have to do with fluky things like injury and bad calls (bruce froemmig)/bounces/whatever

2.) How well did the season build the team for success in the following years

However, having said all that, we probably should say that 2006 was in many ways a failure--we performed poorly against expectations, and though I don't think that relatively poor performance was due to personnel moves, it certainly had much to do with a falling off in pitching performance and not fluky things like injuries.

Also it didn't seem to be a building season towards 2007...though I suppose that's debatable.

AT any rate, my point is that to say merely it wasn't a success because we didn't make the playoffs is a bit of an oversimplifcation.......

I guess I didn't mean my reponse to come off as such black and white. The better way to put it would've been, each season the organization's goal should be to win the World Series or if that is not realistically feasible, to put themselves in a better position to win a World Series for the next seasons. In 2006 we had the talent to win it all, that's why I say it was a failure. Just look at the great start we had. But yeah if a team doesn't have the talent to win a World Series, the goal then should be to make the team better over the course of the season. That one poster who said he will take 90 win seasons every year playoffs or not, that's just outright silly. Postseason baseball is exciting. It's much more exciting when I have a team to root for.

Gavin
01-21-2008, 02:42 PM
A lot of players didn't "regress" in 2006, they just kind of went back to normal (but, yes, some players did much worse than "normal"). Still, 2005 has to be considered a statistical anomaly for many.

jabrch
01-21-2008, 02:45 PM
but I'm a fan of the White Sox, therefore I want to see the White Sox win as many titles as possible.

Again - nobody would disagree with that statement. Of course we do. But a season is not necesarily a failure if you don't win a title.

A 90 win season isn't worth **** if you didn't make the playoffs.

That's your opinion. I had a blast in 2006. That season was worth a lot to me. I'm sorry is sucked so much for you - but if your minimum threshold to enojy a baseball season is making the playoffs, then you will be disappointed more than happy as a fan of most teams.

Flight #24
01-21-2008, 03:00 PM
That's your opinion. I had a blast in 2006. That season was worth a lot to me. I'm sorry is sucked so much for you - but if your minimum threshold to enojy a baseball season is making the playoffs, then you will be disappointed more than happy as a fan of most teams.

I'd separate the two issues. I can have a lot of fun attending a game at which they lose to Tampa Bay or KC by blowing a 9-1 lead in the 9th. That doesn't mean that I'd consider that game anything but a failure. (And it also doesn't mean that I don't have a lot MORE fun when they win).

Just getting to games is fun. But Ws & Ls are what you judge the quality of the team and season by, and ultimately by whether they either make the postseason or make significant progress towards making the postseason in the next years. By any of those counts, 2006 was a failure, even though I enjoyed attending games that year. 2007 was a failure as well despite the games themselves being fun to attend. 2008 is yet to be done, but I'm not overly optimistic that it's going to generate a lot more fun than you get by just being at the ballpark and seeing your favorite team on the field.

fquaye149
01-21-2008, 03:17 PM
Again - nobody would disagree with that statement. Of course we do. But a season is not necesarily a failure if you don't win a title.



That's your opinion. I had a blast in 2006. That season was worth a lot to me. I'm sorry is sucked so much for you - but if your minimum threshold to enojy a baseball season is making the playoffs, then you will be disappointed more than happy as a fan of most teams.

Obviously, if the only way people on this site could enjoy baseball were if their favorite team made the playoffs, they woudl have stopped being White Sox fans or abandoned baseball long ago.

Just because you enjoy baseball doesn't mean that a team is doing well. I enjoyed watching the Bears this year. Did that mean the season was a success?

jabrch
01-21-2008, 04:14 PM
But Ws & Ls are what you judge the quality of the team and season by

No - they are what YOU judge the quality of the team and season by. The game to me is about a lot more than wins and losses. If I judged a season's quality by Wins and Losses, and given that my personal objective is to maximize the quality, I'd simply become a Yankee or a Red Sox fan. Obviously wins and losses are much less important to me than something else.

Flight #24
01-21-2008, 04:31 PM
No - they are what YOU judge the quality of the team and season by. The game to me is about a lot more than wins and losses. If I judged a season's quality by Wins and Losses, and given that my personal objective is to maximize the quality, I'd simply become a Yankee or a Red Sox fan. Obviously wins and losses are much less important to me than something else.
There's a difference between quality of your personal experience and the quality of the team/season. That's the distinction I'm trying to draw. A season can be a failure for the team and still be a positive experience for fans who get to enjoy time at the ballpark.

You've said before that to you, "wins are gravy", which I interpret nice but not necessary for you to enjoy your time at the ballpark (you can correct me if you want on that). So if you hit 30 games and they go 5-25, it might still be a high quality season for you, but if the team wins 70 games out of 162, I have a hard time imagining what criteria would deem that a "success" unless possibly they did it with a crop of kids ala the early Frank/Robin/McDowell days or the late 90s.

I guess my question would be, what's the "something else"? This is sports after all, so Ws & Ls are relevant on some level.

fquaye149
01-21-2008, 05:33 PM
No - they are what YOU judge the quality of the team and season by. The game to me is about a lot more than wins and losses. If I judged a season's quality by Wins and Losses, and given that my personal objective is to maximize the quality, I'd simply become a Yankee or a Red Sox fan. Obviously wins and losses are much less important to me than something else.

You're describing the definition of success professional wrestling governs itself by, not professional sports teams--that is "whether da fanz is entertained!".

There's a reason that the integrity of wins and losses (and statistics) are so closely guarded by major league baseball. It's because in the end the object of the game is to win.

Your goal as a fan is not necessarily to support a winning team nor should it be. It's to enjoy the team as much as you possibly can. Therefore your goals differ greatly from the team's goal, and therefore your definition of a successful season for you as a fan is and SHOULD be different from the team's definition of a successful season for them as a team.

You can certainly personally have a successful season as a fan (enjoy yourself, etc) even if your team has a terrible season from a w/l perspective, but that doesn't make the team's season successful, unless their stated goal is "forget about winning and losing and specifically focus on making sure JABRCH is entertained"

Lip Man 1
01-21-2008, 06:55 PM
Jab like everyone else is entitled to a personal viewpoint on 'success', 'enjoyment' and so forth.

Overall I didn't consider the 2006 season a 'failure,' after all the White Sox don't win 90 games a season like they grow on trees, but yes I was very disappointed in the way the second half of the season went.

It was worse in 2007 because to me (as well as Ozzie judging by his comments) it looked like the team mailed it in starting in June. That I can't tolerate.

Regarding how I 'enjoy' baseball. The atmosphere and all that is nice at a major league game but to me the bottom line is winning and losing games.

Period.

How cold the beer is, if the sun is shining or not or if the stands are full of beautiful women is basically irrelevant to me. I'm there to watch good baseball and see a win first, foremost and always.

If winning and losing didn't matter why do they keep score?

Lip

jabrch
01-21-2008, 07:06 PM
How cold the beer is, if the sun is shining or not or if the stands are full of beautiful women is basically irrelevant to me.

Just for the record - the same is true for me.

nccwsfan
01-21-2008, 10:50 PM
Jab like everyone else is entitled to a personal viewpoint on 'success', 'enjoyment' and so forth.

Overall I didn't consider the 2006 season a 'failure,' after all the White Sox don't win 90 games a season like they grow on trees, but yes I was very disappointed in the way the second half of the season went.

It was worse in 2007 because to me (as well as Ozzie judging by his comments) it looked like the team mailed it in starting in June. That I can't tolerate.

Regarding how I 'enjoy' baseball. The atmosphere and all that is nice at a major league game but to me the bottom line is winning and losing games.

Period.

How cold the beer is, if the sun is shining or not or if the stands are full of beautiful women is basically irrelevant to me. I'm there to watch good baseball and see a win first, foremost and always.

If winning and losing didn't matter why do they keep score?

Lip

I don't think too many of us watch or attend a White Sox game not caring if they win or lose-we'd want them to go 162-0 and sweep the playoffs if it could happen. The difference is that people have varying opinions of what is considered successful.

Watching the 83' team play the way they did that summer, especially August & September, was as much fun as I've ever had as a baseball fan. It was very disappointing to see it end the way it did, but not once did I ever think it was a 'utter complete failure' of a season. Can anyone who was around watching the 90' team really say that it was a 'complete utter failure' because they didn't win the trophy that year? No way! Ditto for other White Sox teams that came out of nowhere and performed well (67', 72', 77', 93', 94', 00'...)

It's one thing to be disappointed in the 06' team for not reaching their goal, but it's another to say it was 'unenjoyable' and 'a complete utter failure'.

TheVulture
01-23-2008, 01:30 PM
That one is either bull**** or lunacy(if it's a true statement)...take your pick.

How is targeting a young, cheap, highly talented outfielder who will be under the club's control for the next five years lunacy exactly? Particularly considering the Sox had one quality OFer heading into the off-season?