PDA

View Full Version : ESPN's Keith Law: White Sox had worst offseason in AL


guillen4life13
02-14-2008, 01:51 PM
I'm actually kind of happy they're saying this. We're back under the radar.

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3241350&categoryId=2521705&n8pe6c=1

key points (paraphrased):

1) Reporter thinks Sox will regret Linebrink contract sooner rather than later.
2) Sox are NOT a contending team, especially in the AL Central, but are trying to act like one.
3) Sox should change directions and rebuild.

These are points that have been proposed, defended, attacked, and mocked on WSI. I think there are a lot of question marks, but I think that if things don't work out this season, 2009 will be a lot better once some guys' contracts expire and the young guns have another year under their belts.

DumpJerry
02-14-2008, 01:58 PM
Whatever. Thanks to Ryan Dempster, MLB doesn't have to play any games this season anyway.

oeo
02-14-2008, 01:59 PM
It's Keith Law. For whatever reason, this guy takes whatever shots he can at the Sox.

Memo to Keith: they've spent one year in the last 20 under .500...they're 'struggling' to get back over .500? :dunno:

Palehose Pete
02-14-2008, 01:59 PM
Interesting POV. Most people think that KW's work in the BP is a strength and instead criticize his decision to give up starting pitching prospects for position players. Thanks for the link.

Boondock Saint
02-14-2008, 01:59 PM
Report: ESPN once again fails to notice anything that occurs outside of Boston and New York

Corlose 15
02-14-2008, 02:02 PM
Whatever, starting last June the Sox have gotten younger, more athletic, and more talented.


I've got no problem with the off-season the Sox have had.

Law11
02-14-2008, 02:04 PM
One guys opinion... He may be right but I think we have a team that will turn things around from last year. Too many guys had horrible years to repeat the same thing.

My hope is that they can do what they havent been able to do since 05 and thats rattle off 7 or 8 straight a few times this year.

The past 2 years here we are in June saying once they get things rolling... and it never happened.

Will we win the division. Probably not but I can see us making some noise in the 2nd half if we compete well in April and May.

veeter
02-14-2008, 02:04 PM
Really, he only ripped the Linebrink contract, but still, it makes me feel good espn hates the Sox again. I do crack up when people freak out about 19 million measly dollars, when guys are signing for 90, 100, 120 and 150 million dollars. If that contract is our biggest worry, the Sox are in good shape.

areilly
02-14-2008, 02:08 PM
I'm actually kind of happy they're saying this. We're back under the radar.

Wouldn't being named by ESPN as coming off the worst offseason in MLB actually put the Sox squarely above the radar?

And mods, can "under the radar" be added to the language filter?

munchman33
02-14-2008, 02:10 PM
Oh look. Another outlet mirrors my comments from the entire offseason.

They must be dillusional.

hi im skot
02-14-2008, 02:11 PM
Dammit...can I cancel my ticket plan?

TomBradley72
02-14-2008, 02:12 PM
Questions around Linebrink are valid...good performance in Petco Park/National League doesn't necessarily translate to USCF/American League.

We'll see.

The WSox committed to contending in the short run vs. rebuilding when they resigned Dye and Buehrle last year...once you've gone that way, you have to play it through.

The Tigers pitching staff has many question marks...Willis coming off 2 bad years in the NL, Rogers' age, average closer, questionable bullpen overall.

kittle42
02-14-2008, 02:12 PM
Blah, blah, blah...the Sox are great because ESPN hates them. None of these buffoons understands anything about baseball. Let the games be played on the field....Blah, blah, blah. 2005, blah, blah, blah. Under the radar, blah, blah, blah. No criticism of anything the Sox do is valid, but criticism of any team opposing the Sox is 100% spot on, blah, blah, blah.

Broken record around here year in and year out. And scarily Cub fan-ish.

Boondock Saint
02-14-2008, 02:13 PM
And mods, can "under the radar" be added to the language filter?

Oh on the contrary! I think it should be the new tag for "WSI Regulars"...

hi im skot
02-14-2008, 02:13 PM
Oh look. Another outlet mirrors my comments from the entire offseason.

They must be dillusional.

Mr. Law!!

It's so great to have you on the board! Why didn't you introduce yourself earlier!

:happybday

kittle42
02-14-2008, 02:13 PM
Oh look. Another outlet mirrors my comments from the entire offseason.

They must be dillusional.

Is dillusion something having to do with dill pickles?

hi im skot
02-14-2008, 02:14 PM
Is dillusion something having to do with dill pickles?


Only the kosher ones.

Jerko
02-14-2008, 02:14 PM
Good thing I didn't post the Feb. 13th Power Rankings.

Gammons Peter
02-14-2008, 02:14 PM
From his chat session today on ESPN

Jon Milwaukee: How do you think the Whitesox will be this year? Predictions for Sox-Cubs game?

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif Keith Law: (1:49 PM ET ) The White Sox will be bad, but in a division with two similarly bad teams, they might fake their way to 75 wins or so.

Thigpen "57"
02-14-2008, 02:15 PM
It's Keith Law. For whatever reason, this guy takes whatever shots he can at the Sox.

Memo to Keith: they've spent one year in the last 20 under .500...they're 'struggling' to get back over .500? :dunno:


Actually, in the past 20 years the Sox have had 7 seasons under 500. But I get your point. It is not as though the Sox have been like the Pirates, Tigers(with exception to the past 2 years), or Royals for the past 10 years even.

This is a contending team who will either be pushing for the Division, or will be a deciding factor on who does. As stated in numerous other posts, this team had to many guys play below average years.

Under the radar we shall be then! I am liking it. :smile:

hi im skot
02-14-2008, 02:17 PM
Keith Law is bad, but at a network with 327 similarly bad writers, he'll fake his way to a "baseball expert" title.

chisoxmike
02-14-2008, 02:18 PM
I'm actually kind of happy they're saying this. We're back under the radar.

http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3241350&categoryId=2521705&n8pe6c=1

key points (paraphrased):

1) Reporter thinks Sox will regret Linebrink contract sooner rather than later.
2) Sox are NOT a contending team, especially in the AL Central, but are trying to act like one.
3) Sox should change directions and rebuild.




I agree with points 1 & 2.

Gammons Peter
02-14-2008, 02:18 PM
here's another nugget:

Chris D (Capital City): You honestly think the White Sox had the worst offseason? Swisher, Cabrera and Quentin will make a huge impact, and the bullpen should be a lot better.

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif Keith Law: (1:56 PM ET ) The problem is that they don't get it. They're not a good team. They have no shot to contend with Detroit or Cleveland. Trying to improve the '08 club was the wrong strategy. I didn't mind the Swisher acquisition, but why are they giving up prospects?

soxfan13
02-14-2008, 02:18 PM
It's Keith Law. For whatever reason, this guy takes whatever shots he can at the Sox.

Memo to Keith: they've spent one year in the last 20 under .500...they're 'struggling' to get back over .500? :dunno:

:?: not arguing about the blip but if you are referring to the White Sox They have been under .500- 9 times in the last 20 years.

RoobarbPie
02-14-2008, 02:20 PM
Don't take Keith Law too seriously. He's a better evaluator of prospects than he is MLB teams.

He's said this about the White Sox in practically every chat the last couple of years because of Kenny trading our prospects.

oeo
02-14-2008, 02:20 PM
Actually, in the past 20 years the Sox have had 7 seasons under 500.

That was supposed to read 15 years...which I know still isn't true, but I was exaggerating to make a point, which you got.

areilly
02-14-2008, 02:22 PM
Too bad Keith Law is the only barometer of how the Sox will actually perform this year, otherwise I'd say we have a shot. Yay Kenny! Under the radar! And we could bring back Frank for one last at-bat to win the World Series! Yay baseball!!!

fquaye149
02-14-2008, 02:23 PM
Oh look. Another outlet mirrors my comments from the entire offseason.

They must be dillusional.

Another? Don't tell me you're counting Phil Rogers and Mariotti.

Besides this and them, I don't see too many other people classifying this offseason as a failure:rolleyes:

kittle42
02-14-2008, 02:23 PM
This is a contending team who will either be pushing for the Division, or will be a deciding factor on who does. As stated in numerous other posts, this team had to many guys play below average years.

Listen - I am not one of these eternal pessimists (munch, Homefish) who thinks the Sox will be the worst team in the AL or even in the Central, but I do think it's more realistic that they'll finish 4th or 5th in the Central than 1st or 2nd, and yes, that is based on offseason moves, remaining holes, the strength of the opposition, and the possibility that several of the players who had "below-average" years may play just as poorly this season. Is it possible everything will click and they can win a division or more? Sure, but almost every team can say that. Anyone here tell me right now you wouldn't rather have the roster on paper of the Indians or Tigers and I'll tell you you're full of crap.

Enough ranting - it's not like it's going to get me anywhere, anyway.

chisoxmike
02-14-2008, 02:23 PM
Does anybody know what he said about the team in 2005? If it was close to what he is saying now, we're going to win the World Series this year!

Thigpen "57"
02-14-2008, 02:23 PM
:?: not arguing about the blip but if you are referring to the White Sox They have been under .500- 9 times in the last 20 years.


Really? When I look at the White Sox record over the past 20 years, which is 1988 thru 2007, I count 7 seasons of losing records. 2007, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1995, 1989, and 1988 were all under .500 records. Which ones am I missing?

Not that I want to debate losing seasons for the Sox, but I am just curious where my counting is off. :?:

Thigpen "57"
02-14-2008, 02:24 PM
That was supposed to read 15 years...which I know still isn't true, but I was exaggerating to make a point, which you got.


Right on, wasn't trying to pick an argument, just wanted to put the facts out there! :D:

rdivaldi
02-14-2008, 02:26 PM
75 wins at most?

:?:

I'll take that bet in a heartbeat...

oeo
02-14-2008, 02:27 PM
:?: not arguing about the blip but if you are referring to the White Sox They have been under .500- 9 times in the last 20 years.

My point was that this team hasn't been living under .500 like Mr. Law seems to think. They had one bad season. Those are the kind of comments you make about a team like the Tigers a few years ago, or the Devil Rays; someone that has sucked for years.

Corlose 15
02-14-2008, 02:27 PM
Wow you guys really are hilarious. I'm still holding my sides.:rolleyes:



Nobody, with a brain can look at the years that Dye AJ and Paule had last year, how bad the bullpen was and look at the additions the Sox got this offseason and say the only reason they'll get to 75 wins this year is because the Twins and Royals suck.

cws05champ
02-14-2008, 02:28 PM
I don't watch ESPN anymore. It's pointless, especially during baseball season....or should I say Yanks and Red Sox season.

chisoxmike
02-14-2008, 02:28 PM
Are the Sox better going into the 2008 season than they were going into the 2007 season? I'd think so, not by much. I thought the 2007 team was crap from the start.

This year's team should be able to finish in 3rd place and at or a bit above .500.

chisoxmike
02-14-2008, 02:29 PM
I'd say 83 wins.

areilly
02-14-2008, 02:30 PM
Dude. Stark doesn't like the Linebrink deal, either. We're totally going to win the World Series. Seriously. Can you tell I'm being serious? Because I am.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3243063

"...And $19 million for Linebrink, whose opponent OPS has swelled from .583 to .678 to .742 over the past three years, made him the bad-bullpen-contract poster boy of 2008. "

areilly
02-14-2008, 02:31 PM
I'd say 83 wins.

I agree, and I'd be ecstatic with an 11-game turnaround.

fquaye149
02-14-2008, 02:31 PM
What most people who bring up the idea "The Sox aren't going to contend so they should have rebuilt" (an idea I don't necessarily disagree with on principle) overlook is that the White Sox are in a uniquely nebulous situation, with much of the Chicago fanbase up for grabs.

You need only look to how season ticket sales went up after the World Series and down after our pitiful 2007 to see that having a 2008 campaign in which we won 72 games, even if that meant giving us a better chance for 2009 and beyond, would be unacceptable from any standpoint of viability.

From the standpoint that KW has to operate under (i.e. we NEED to tangibly improve our W/L record for 2008, but we also need to keep an eye toward the future while attempting to "win [...more games if not the division] now" ) he did a fairly good job, getting Swisher and Quentin and allowing Floyd to sink or swim in the rotation.

There is no doubt in my mind that this team will win more games than the 2007 team, but Kenny also managed to find ways to probably make us better in the long term (2009, 2010) too.

spiffie
02-14-2008, 02:37 PM
What most people who bring up the idea "The Sox aren't going to contend so they should have rebuilt" (an idea I don't necessarily disagree with on principle) overlook is that the White Sox are in a uniquely nebulous situation, with much of the Chicago fanbase up for grabs.

You need only look to how season ticket sales went up after the World Series and down after our pitiful 2007 to see that having a 2008 campaign in which we won 72 games, even if that meant giving us a better chance for 2009 and beyond, would be unacceptable from any standpoint of viability.

From the standpoint that KW has to operate under (i.e. we NEED to tangibly improve our W/L record for 2008, but we also need to keep an eye toward the future while attempting to "win [...more games if not the division] now" ) he did a fairly good job, getting Swisher and Quentin and allowing Floyd to sink or swim in the rotation.

There is no doubt in my mind that this team will win more games than the 2007 team, but Kenny also managed to find ways to probably make us better in the long term (2009, 2010) too.
Purely as a hypothetical, what would be more likely to benefit the team in terms of attendance/publicity? Playing .500 ball the next two-three years, or having a terrible team in 2008, a .500 team in 2009, and a playoff team in 2010? Not that either of those would be guaranteed to happen under any circumstance, but I wonder if the benefits of being marginally competitive every year outweigh the benefits of years where the team is a serious contender/playoff team, even if the period in between those years is less promising. To me it seems like there is a core fanbase and a casual fanbase, and that the core is pretty much there no matter what, but that the casual fans don't move much until the team approaches let's say the 90 win mark.

chisoxmike
02-14-2008, 02:37 PM
Dude. Stark doesn't like the Linebrink deal, either. We're totally going to win the World Series. Seriously. Can you tell I'm being serious? Because I am.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3243063

"...And $19 million for Linebrink, whose opponent OPS has swelled from .583 to .678 to .742 over the past three years, made him the bad-bullpen-contract poster boy of 2008. "

I agree with everything said about Linebrink. I think its a horrible signing. How dare I... :rolleyes:

gr8mexico
02-14-2008, 02:37 PM
The 2008 team is way better then the 2007. By upgrading 2 starting positions possibly 3 and only loosing 1 starting pitcher. The Bullpen got a huge boost. This team has a mix of young veterans that will help this team win more games this year. I'm not sure if we can win 90 games but it will be close

Luke
02-14-2008, 02:40 PM
How exactly does a team fake it's way to 75 wins? What is a fake win anyway? Maybe MLB is instituting a third number in W/L record to indicate fake wins? So a team can finish 81-41-40, with 40 fake wins.

I'm guessing he feels that Detroit and Cleveland's wins will be real?

Do the Red Sox and Yankees get fake wins when they beat up on Baltimore and TB for a decade at a time?

In the NL central are there any real wins to be had?

Either way, he must be very smart working for ESPN and all.

sox1970
02-14-2008, 02:40 PM
Lot of IF's this season. These ESPN guys may turn out completely correct.

If Kenny's mindset was to rebuild, I think most of us would go along with that too. But it's not. Kenny's going to try to "Win Now" as long as he's here, and he's staking his job security on that philosophy.

If the Sox don't contend this year or next, I'll probably start to turn on KW. Yes, he won a championship, but you also have to take in consideration the Sox have only made the playoffs once in his time as GM. If they don't make the playoffs this year, once in eight years is not a very good record.

kittle42
02-14-2008, 02:49 PM
once in eight years is not a very good record.

But it is in Chicago!

areilly
02-14-2008, 02:50 PM
The 2008 team is way better then the 2007. By upgrading 2 starting positions possibly 3 and only loosing 1 starting pitcher. The Bullpen got a huge boost. This team has a mix of young veterans that will help this team win more games this year. I'm not sure if we can win 90 games but it will be close

Of course it is, but that's only because it couldn't be any worse.

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 02:51 PM
Oh look. Another outlet mirrors my comments from the entire offseason.

They must be dillusional.

A munchman comment in a thread that picks apart our GM's moves? It couldn't be. Where's that thread of "Things that will happen before the Cubs win the World Series"?

I've got a new entry: munchman33 will post a comment in the Clubhouse actually supporting our player personnel decisions.

KenBerryGrab
02-14-2008, 02:53 PM
here's another nugget:

Chris D (Capital City): You honestly think the White Sox had the worst offseason? Swisher, Cabrera and Quentin will make a huge impact, and the bullpen should be a lot better.

http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif Keith Law: (1:56 PM ET ) The problem is that they don't get it. They're not a good team. They have no shot to contend with Detroit or Cleveland. Trying to improve the '08 club was the wrong strategy. I didn't mind the Swisher acquisition, but why are they giving up prospects?

Hey, that's my question!

Crede_Fan
02-14-2008, 02:53 PM
Have to say, that Met uni looks really good on Johan. Front page of espn.com

jdm2662
02-14-2008, 02:55 PM
Putting ESPN aside since they are as revelant in my life as the Moron is, I have no idea what to think about the 2008 White Sox. They can lose 90 games again, hover around .500, or win the division. I seriously have no idea. It seems when the Sox are expected to do well, they don't, and they when they aren't susposed to do anything, they do. With last year's team and the strength of the division, I would say the odds aren't in their favor to do well this year. In this decade, there was one team going into camp where I didn't feel the most excited about. That year was 2005. This year, I'm even less excited. Based on that, maybe the Sox will do good this year. I will wait and see.

Gammons Peter
02-14-2008, 02:56 PM
I agree, and I'd be ecstatic with an 11-game turnaround.


I'll be sick if thats all we win

soxfan13
02-14-2008, 02:56 PM
Really? When I look at the White Sox record over the past 20 years, which is 1988 thru 2007, I count 7 seasons of losing records. 2007, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1995, 1989, and 1988 were all under .500 records. Which ones am I missing?

Not that I want to debate losing seasons for the Sox, but I am just curious where my counting is off. :?:

Actually you are right i counted the 87 season and the 94 team i counted cuz I was just going thru the win column and saw 67 wins not realizing it was the strike year:redface:

doublem23
02-14-2008, 03:00 PM
If the Sox don't contend this year or next, I'll probably start to turn on KW. Yes, he won a championship, but you also have to take in consideration the Sox have only made the playoffs once in his time as GM. If they don't make the playoffs this year, once in eight years is not a very good record.

This isn't the NBA or NHL were over 1/2 the teams make the play-offs every year. 4 teams make the post-season from the American League every year, just about a quarter of the teams. The Sox were in the thick of the post-season race from 2003-2006.

grv1974
02-14-2008, 03:03 PM
Blah, blah, blah...the Sox are great because ESPN hates them. None of these buffoons understands anything about baseball. Let the games be played on the field....Blah, blah, blah. 2005, blah, blah, blah. Under the radar, blah, blah, blah. No criticism of anything the Sox do is valid, but criticism of any team opposing the Sox is 100% spot on, blah, blah, blah.

Broken record around here year in and year out. And scarily Cub fan-ish.

Amen.

sox1970
02-14-2008, 03:05 PM
This isn't the NBA or NHL were over 1/2 the teams make the play-offs every year. 4 teams make the post-season from the American League every year, just about a quarter of the teams. The Sox were in the thick of the post-season race from 2003-2006.

Ok, take the Royals out of the equation, and say the Sox, Indians, Twins, and Tigers are equal. Shouldn't the Sox have won the division at least twice in eight years? They'll have to win the division this year for that.

Forget about contending, they gotta WIN the division more.

palehozenychicty
02-14-2008, 03:11 PM
Ok, take the Royals out of the equation, and say the Sox, Indians, Twins, and Tigers are equal. Shouldn't the Sox have won the division at least twice in eight years? They'll have to win the division this year for that.

Forget about contending, they gotta WIN the division more.

Exactly, considering that they have the highest level of resources in their division. Contending is a wonderful thing, but why play for second place?

Thigpen "57"
02-14-2008, 03:13 PM
This isn't the NBA or NHL were over 1/2 the teams make the play-offs every year. 4 teams make the post-season from the American League every year, just about a quarter of the teams. The Sox were in the thick of the post-season race from 2003-2006.


For sure. This seems to be the common underlying message most of us have been saying. There have been some very good Sox teams in recent years who either won it all (need I say '05?), or have come close and missed because they lacked a couple pieces, or got bit by injury. '04 was a very good team, that continued on without Frank, Mags, or a real fifth starter. Wasn't down to the wire, but they hung in there most of the year. '06 was strong with 90 wins, but pitching was definitely inconsistent. They definitely have fallen short overall though.

After the '05 season, the bar was definitely raied and KW has tried to keep the the roster filled with "quality" players and his favorite "high ceiling" players for the most part. These next 2 years are key for Kenny and the franchise. And there should be good competition from this club as long as we develop our young talent that's on the team. But if the pen falters for a second straight year, KW has some 'splainin to do.

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-14-2008, 03:15 PM
ESPN needs to shed water since their golden boy is under fire. Why not go and attack/downgrade other teams while they're at it?

Screw them and their opinions. They deface the game of baseball by covering it.

chisoxmike
02-14-2008, 03:29 PM
ESPN needs to shed water since their golden boy is under fire. Why not go and attack/downgrade other teams while they're at it?


They did. At least the Sox weren't on the list of "Least Recognizable Teams" :dunno:

The WSI Spin masters won't tell you that though.

hi im skot
02-14-2008, 03:32 PM
God, I hate the offseason.

AZChiSoxFan
02-14-2008, 03:37 PM
Oh look. Another outlet mirrors my comments from the entire offseason.

They must be dillusional.

If you think the Sox won't compete in 2008, that's fine. However, to claim that they had the worst offseason in the AL truly is dellusional. What did the Royals do this offseason? The Twins? Sure, they only gave up the best pitcher in baseball for a bunch of spare parts. What have the Yankees and Red Sox done this offseason. I'm pretty sure the Sox won't be as good as either of those two teams this year but the writer was talking about offseason and I know the Sox had a better offseason than either Boston or NY.

doublem23
02-14-2008, 03:43 PM
Ok, take the Royals out of the equation, and say the Sox, Indians, Twins, and Tigers are equal. Shouldn't the Sox have won the division at least twice in eight years? They'll have to win the division this year for that.

Forget about contending, they gotta WIN the division more.

KW totally should have had a spare superstar outfield riding the bench in '04 because any logical fan would have forseen Willie Harris and Magglio Ordonez colliding in the outfield in Cleveland. I mean, Magg's FIF (Freak Injury Factor) is something like 1.17!

:rolleyes:

Save McCuddy's
02-14-2008, 03:43 PM
How did anyone have a worse off season than the Twins?

They were a strong contender for the AL Central if they simply brought the 2007 team back. They'd have been a significant bet for the whole enchilada if they had added a bat at DH or in the OF somewhere.

But, they cut ties with the heart of their lineup and lost a right handed power hitter that they could ill-afford to lose in Hunter. Then, in a move that they should have been ridiculed immensely for, they lose the high stakes poker play with Boston and the Yankees and get a lot less for Santana than they could have a month earlier. That might have been a sustainable loss -- but not when they started the off-season with as good a chance as anybody to win in '08 with the pieces they had.

AZChiSoxFan
02-14-2008, 03:44 PM
Blah, blah, blah...the Sox are great because ESPN hates them. None of these buffoons understands anything about baseball. Let the games be played on the field....Blah, blah, blah. 2005, blah, blah, blah. Under the radar, blah, blah, blah. No criticism of anything the Sox do is valid, but criticism of any team opposing the Sox is 100% spot on, blah, blah, blah.

Broken record around here year in and year out. And scarily Cub fan-ish.

I must be reading a different WSI than the one you read Kittle. Someone early in this thread predicted 83 wins. That's just a little different than Cub fans always predicting a WS title.

Again, this article was not about what teams will be good this year. It was about the offseason. The Sox added two starting OF's, a starting SS and addressed the bullpen. I guess you're right. I can clearly see that they had the worst offseason in the AL.

fquaye149
02-14-2008, 03:48 PM
Purely as a hypothetical, what would be more likely to benefit the team in terms of attendance/publicity? Playing .500 ball the next two-three years, or having a terrible team in 2008, a .500 team in 2009, and a playoff team in 2010? Not that either of those would be guaranteed to happen under any circumstance, but I wonder if the benefits of being marginally competitive every year outweigh the benefits of years where the team is a serious contender/playoff team, even if the period in between those years is less promising. To me it seems like there is a core fanbase and a casual fanbase, and that the core is pretty much there no matter what, but that the casual fans don't move much until the team approaches let's say the 90 win mark.

The problem is that playing sub-.500 ball next year is problematic not just in 2008's ticket sales but in 2009 and 2010's ticket sales.

Not to mention that it's a poor strategy for ticket promotion to play for the future insofar as that there's no guarantee that selling off the vets to pump the farm will make you a championship team. The A's tried that with Mulder and Hudson and though the players they got were good, they haven't really contended.

If the Sox had played for the future (which, from a purely basebally standpoint, they probably should have) season ticket sales, which had already dropped for 08, would have probably plummetted in 09, as moderately diehard Sox fans would have been tempted to cry "White Flag," and fairweathers would view the team as a nonentity.

It would take another WS to bring back that interest, especially as the Comedy Central Cubs seemed poised to limp into the playoffs once again

munchman33
02-14-2008, 03:48 PM
If you think the Sox won't compete in 2008, that's fine. However, to claim that they had the worst offseason in the AL truly is dellusional. What did the Royals do this offseason? The Twins? Sure, they only gave up the best pitcher in baseball for a bunch of spare parts. What have the Yankees and Red Sox done this offseason. I'm pretty sure the Sox won't be as good as either of those two teams this year but the writer was talking about offseason and I know the Sox had a better offseason than either Boston or NY.

Big picture, yes. Say your claim is that the Sox WON'T compete at all in their division.

Based on the moves they've made, trading away all their prospects, picking up players like Linebrink, Cabrera...Yes, that would definately be the worst offseason. Because you've crippled the organization for no reason because you won't compete anyway. Now you have no future as well.

I, personally, won't say that though. I don't know yet if we'll compete. It all depends on our starters. I'm leaning towards no, but you never know. Our bottom three might improve by nearly two runs each. It isn't likely, but it could happen.

kittle42
02-14-2008, 03:49 PM
Again, this article was not about what teams will be good this year. It was about the offseason. The Sox added two starting OF's, a starting SS and addressed the bullpen. I guess you're right. I can clearly see that they had the worst offseason in the AL.

Listing moves without analyzing them does not address the quality of offseason moves.

You're also missing my point - 83 wins is not some bold prediction, either. That's barely above .500. You can find folks spouting the usual drivel I referenced in many other threads.

Frontman
02-14-2008, 03:52 PM
So, if the Sox had the worst off-season in the AL, the Twins had a good one by moving Santana and losing Hunter?!?!?!

Uh huh. Keep smokin' whatever it is you got, Mr. Law.

AZChiSoxFan
02-14-2008, 03:54 PM
Dude. Stark doesn't like the Linebrink deal, either. We're totally going to win the World Series. Seriously. Can you tell I'm being serious? Because I am.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3243063

"...And $19 million for Linebrink, whose opponent OPS has swelled from .583 to .678 to .742 over the past three years, made him the bad-bullpen-contract poster boy of 2008. ".

The frustrating part about everyone in the media ripping the Sox for Linebrink is this: Even if he totally bombs out, the Sox will have wasted "only" $19M. Yet teams like the Dodgers, Angels, and Giants barely take any heat for wasting large sums of cash on Pierre, Matthews, and Zito, respectively.

Frontman
02-14-2008, 03:59 PM
.

The frustrating part about everyone in the media ripping the Sox for Linebrink is this: Even if he totally bombs out, the Sox will have wasted "only" $19M. Yet teams like the Dodgers, Angels, and Giants barely take any heat for wasting large sums of cash on Pierre, Matthews, and Zito, respectively.

Don't forget Rowand when talking about wasting money and the Giants......

*ducks quickly to avoid heavy objects thrown his way for speaking ill of the Legend.*

hi im skot
02-14-2008, 03:59 PM
How did anyone have a worse off season than the Twins?

They were a strong contender for the AL Central if they simply brought the 2007 team back. They'd have been a significant bet for the whole enchilada if they had added a bat at DH or in the OF somewhere.

But, they cut ties with the heart of their lineup and lost a right handed power hitter that they could ill-afford to lose in Hunter. Then, in a move that they should have been ridiculed immensely for, they lose the high stakes poker play with Boston and the Yankees and get a lot less for Santana than they could have a month earlier. That might have been a sustainable loss -- but not when they started the off-season with as good a chance as anybody to win in '08 with the pieces they had.

Professor Keith will tell us that it's okay that the Twins did all of this, though; the Twins didn't lose a bunch of "can't miss" prospects.

doublem23
02-14-2008, 03:59 PM
Blah, blah, blah...the Sox are great because ESPN hates them. None of these buffoons understands anything about baseball. Let the games be played on the field....Blah, blah, blah. 2005, blah, blah, blah. Under the radar, blah, blah, blah. No criticism of anything the Sox do is valid, but criticism of any team opposing the Sox is 100% spot on, blah, blah, blah.

Broken record around here year in and year out. And scarily Cub fan-ish.

Well thank god you're hear to show us all the way. I don't even know why we keep this message board up and running any more, since your thoughts and opinions are waaay more important and profound than the other 6,000 members here.

BTW, what were the Sox picked to finish in 2005? I wonder where anyone would have gotten precedence to question the all-mighty sports vanguard in Bristol?

munchman33
02-14-2008, 03:59 PM
I'll be sick if thats all we win

Start preparing now. Keith's 75 is a lot more likely than the 97 or so it'll take to win the division.

AZChiSoxFan
02-14-2008, 04:05 PM
Big picture, yes. Say your claim is that the Sox WON'T compete at all in their division.

Based on the moves they've made, trading away all their prospects, picking up players like Linebrink, Cabrera...Yes, that would definately be the worst offseason. Because you've crippled the organization for no reason because you won't compete anyway. Now you have no future as well.

I, personally, won't say that though. I don't know yet if we'll compete. It all depends on our starters. I'm leaning towards no, but you never know. Our bottom three might improve by nearly two runs each. It isn't likely, but it could happen.

The Sox get ripped by ESPN for having "no prospects" on the farm. Then when they trade away these guys, they get ripped further for trading them?!?!?!? :?:

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 04:09 PM
Based on the moves they've made, trading away all their prospects, picking up players like Linebrink, Cabrera...Yes, that would definately be the worst offseason. Because you've crippled the organization for no reason because you won't compete anyway. Now you have no future as well.



Oh *****. Trading away all of our prospects? Why is everyone so damn concerned about the prospects in our organization? Everyone is getting caught up in the "relativity factor" for our prospects. In our organization, every prospects looks a little bit better, and is a little bit better on the rankings, because frankly, our minor league talent is not that good. When you compare them to the rest of the universe, no one really stands out (Oh, except a lefty with a 98 mph fastball; good luck finding another one of those).

Because of all the "high-ranking" prospects we traded, one may say that we mortgaged the future. Hate to break it to you all, but there wasn't much of a future to mortgage. If people were banking on developing our prospects into a major league ballclub in 3-5 years, we would be in deep ****. And the trade value of our current major leaguers was not that high. Replenishing our farm system by trading superstars was not an option. We don't have the Dan Haren, Erik Bedard or Johan Santana to trade. Without one of those highly desirable players, our hands were tied. We were going to add decent prospects to a poor farm system. You'd be fooling yourself if you said that any package for Konerko, Crede or Dye was going to be overwhelming.

Instead, we added two players who upgrade our bullpen, two young athletic outfielders, and one of the better shortstops in the game. I didn't like giving up Garland, trust me, but not everything is free. I don't know anyone who would confidently argue that this team is worse than it was on October 15th. I believe this will be a competitive and fun to watch team for at least a couple years. In that meantime, there's a lot of responsibility on the front office to draft better, and scout international players more heavily.

KenBerryGrab
02-14-2008, 04:09 PM
BTW, what were the Sox picked to finish in 2005? I wonder where anyone would have gotten precedence to question the all-mighty sports vanguard in Bristol?

ESPN the Magazine picked the White Sox for fourth in the division in 2005.

cws05champ
02-14-2008, 04:10 PM
How exactly does a team fake it's way to 75 wins? What is a fake win anyway? Maybe MLB is instituting a third number in W/L record to indicate fake wins? So a team can finish 81-41-40, with 40 fake wins.

I'm guessing he feels that Detroit and Cleveland's wins will be real?

Do the Red Sox and Yankees get fake wins when they beat up on Baltimore and TB for a decade at a time?

In the NL central are there any real wins to be had?

Either way, he must be very smart working for ESPN and all.

A Fake win is like a simulated game...pitchers throw some towels and whatnot. Just ask Mark Prior

Hokiesox
02-14-2008, 04:13 PM
Hey, that's my question!



Obviously you don't get it.

areilly
02-14-2008, 04:16 PM
BTW, what were the Sox picked to finish in 2005? I wonder where anyone would have gotten precedence to question the all-mighty sports vanguard in Bristol?

BTW, what were the Sox picked to finish in 2006? And why did no one exercise their precedence to question the all-mighty sports vanguard in Bristol?

WhiteSox5187
02-14-2008, 04:17 PM
Well, here's my two cents, first off, I don't give a damn what ESPN thinks. The only two teams that ever have good off seasons as far as they are concerned are the Red Sox and the Yankees and right now the White Sox have just as good a record as either of them. We won't know whether or not the moves we made were good or bad until we start playing the games. Right now the Sox have as good a chance as anyone to win the World Series.

As for my personal opinion, I think the Sox are going to be a better team in '08 than we were in '07 and I think 83 wins is a possibility and we could cause problems for the Tigers or the Twins, but I don't think we're going to win the division, I don't think we're going to contend even really. We'll be a good team that needs to add a couple more pieces to the puzzle. But let's see, I hope I'm dead wrong and we come roaring out of the gate and never let up.

Secondly, as has been mentioned before, I'm tired of hearing "Oh, we're under the radar, just like '05!" Uh-huh, and we could add '07, '04, '03 and '02 to that list of years we were "under the radar" and how did we do then? Just being under the radar doesn't necessarily mean good things are in store, but it doesn't mean bad things are in store either. It means nothing. We won in '05 because we had the best rotation, one of the best bullpens and executed when we needed to, not because we were "under the radar." If we do those things again in '08, we'll win. Being under the radar has nothing to do with our successes or trials.

voodoochile
02-14-2008, 04:22 PM
I agree, and I'd be ecstatic with an 11-game turnaround.

I am confused by this argument. Why is it possible for a team to have an 18 game negative turnaround one season but not add some good talent and get those 18 or even more games back the next year?

Are only big negative turnarounds possible?

AZChiSoxFan
02-14-2008, 04:25 PM
You're also missing my point - 83 wins is not some bold prediction, either. That's barely above .500.

That was my point. You claimed that most here at WSI are basically kool-aide drinkers (I know, you didn't use that term but I believe that was your point). You called most here at WSI "Cub-like." I pointed to the poster who predicted 83 wins as an example of someone here who is very un-cub-like.

spawn
02-14-2008, 04:25 PM
If this guy thinks the Sox won't contend in '08, fine. But they to say they had the worst off-season in the AL is ridiculous. We lost Garland and released most of the terrible bullpen they had last season. We added a gold-golve shortstop in Cabrera, upgraded the outfield with Swisher and possibly Quentin, and added Dotrel and Linebrink. The Twins lost Hunter and arguably the best left-handed pitcher in the game. Those two losses alone tell me the Twins had a worse off-season than the White Sox. But whatever. I'm not rteady to proclaim the White Sox Central Division champs, butI don't think they'll be as bad as most pundits think.

areilly
02-14-2008, 04:26 PM
I am confused by this argument. Why is it possible for a team to have an 18 game negative turnaround one season but not add some good talent and get those 18 or even more games back the next year?

Are only big negative turnarounds possible?

I think it's more a case of an 18-game swing in either direction being fairly uncommon, or at least a rarer occurence than an 11 game turnaround in either direction.

This is also just my own personal bias talking, but I don't see Swisher, Quentin, Dotel et al doing much more than stopping the bleeding. But that's just me.

veeter
02-14-2008, 04:32 PM
Well thank god you're hear to show us all the way. I don't even know why we keep this message board up and running any more, since your thoughts and opinions are waaay more important and profound than the other 6,000 members here.

BTW, what were the Sox picked to finish in 2005? I wonder where anyone would have gotten precedence to question the all-mighty sports vanguard in Bristol?Nicely stated.

doublem23
02-14-2008, 04:32 PM
BTW, what were the Sox picked to finish in 2006? And why did no one exercise their precedence to question the all-mighty sports vanguard in Bristol?

Maybe because most of us don't like to wallow in self-pity? :dunno:

P.S., I hope you mean '07... The Sox still won 90 games in 2006.

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 04:41 PM
I think it's more a case of an 18-game swing in either direction being fairly uncommon, or at least a rarer occurence than an 11 game turnaround in either direction.



+17, -5, 0, -5, +20, -12, -2, +5, -3, +16, -9, -18

Those are our win differentials, year-to-year since 1995. In four (33%) of those years, the absolute value of the differential was 16 or above. Of course it's rarer than an 11-game swing (by only 17%), but it happens with frequency. In other words, this isn't your grandpa's baseball league. Expansive player movement leads to a lot of year-to-year variability in success. In the last twelve years if you said we were going to be +/- 10 victories from the year before, you'd be right half the time and wrong half the time. This year you're going to be wrong. :cool: (Thank you bullpen!)

munchman33
02-14-2008, 04:42 PM
I am confused by this argument. Why is it possible for a team to have an 18 game negative turnaround one season but not add some good talent and get those 18 or even more games back the next year?

Are only big negative turnarounds possible?

If we swing 18 games positively we still come in third. That's the problem Voodoo.

munchman33
02-14-2008, 04:53 PM
Oh *****. Trading away all of our prospects? Why is everyone so damn concerned about the prospects in our organization? Everyone is getting caught up in the "relativity factor" for our prospects. In our organization, every prospects looks a little bit better, and is a little bit better on the rankings, because frankly, our minor league talent is not that good. When you compare them to the rest of the universe, no one really stands out (Oh, except a lefty with a 98 mph fastball; good luck finding another one of those).

Because of all the "high-ranking" prospects we traded, one may say that we mortgaged the future. Hate to break it to you all, but there wasn't much of a future to mortgage. If people were banking on developing our prospects into a major league ballclub in 3-5 years, we would be in deep ****. And the trade value of our current major leaguers was not that high. Replenishing our farm system by trading superstars was not an option. We don't have the Dan Haren, Erik Bedard or Johan Santana to trade. Without one of those highly desirable players, our hands were tied. We were going to add decent prospects to a poor farm system. You'd be fooling yourself if you said that any package for Konerko, Crede or Dye was going to be overwhelming.

Instead, we added two players who upgrade our bullpen, two young athletic outfielders, and one of the better shortstops in the game. I didn't like giving up Garland, trust me, but not everything is free. I don't know anyone who would confidently argue that this team is worse than it was on October 15th. I believe this will be a competitive and fun to watch team for at least a couple years. In that meantime, there's a lot of responsibility on the front office to draft better, and scout international players more heavily.

Because we're a team that most experts feel has no "present." Now we have no "future" as well.

If it's between winning now and prospects, of course I want to win now. But the chances of winning now are so slight... Smaller than those here want to admit. Because not only does our rotation blow chunks, but two of the best three teams in baseball are likely in our division.

areilly
02-14-2008, 04:53 PM
Maybe because most of us don't like to wallow in self-pity? :dunno:

P.S., I hope you mean '07... The Sox still won 90 games in 2006.

No, I meant 2006, when ESPN picked the White Sox to win the World Series. And no, I don't care about 90 wins; division strengths change, but third place is still third place.

TomBradley72
02-14-2008, 04:54 PM
I think we have a chance to truly contend...some of it is based on KW's moves and some based on the make up of the Tigers and the Indians. Tigers pitching staff has alot of question marks and the Indians every day starting line up (Casey Blake at 3B?) is not overwhelming and Borowski is their closer.

"On paper" I'd put us at 3rd base. But if their weaknesses are exposed and our "question marks" go our way (Contreras, Floyd, Danks, Quentin primarily) then we have a shot.

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 04:54 PM
If we swing 18 games positively we still come in third. That's the problem Voodoo.

Three (7.1%) of the last 42 division races have produced three 90+ win baseball teams. If the White Sox win 18 extra games where do you think they're going to come from? Fair share would assume two wins each from the Indians and Tigers. There's not an infinite number of wins to be had. Of course, we know you're not buying into a 90-win campaign; hell, I don't even think you're buying into a 70-win campaign. But if you tell me in October that we win 90 games, I can say with about 93% confidence that we won't finish in third place. I like my odds. Of course, getting to the playoffs is another story.

munchman33
02-14-2008, 04:55 PM
Three (7.1%) of the last 42 division races have produced three 90+ win baseball teams. If the White Sox win 18 extra games where do you think they're going to come from? Fair share would assume two wins each from the Indians and Tigers. There's not an infinite number of wins to be had. Of course, we know you're not buying into a 90-win campaign; hell, I don't even think you're buying into a 70-win campaign. But if you tell me in October that we win 90 games, I can say with about 93% confidence that we won't finish in third place. I like my odds. Of course, getting to the playoffs is another story.

Actually, most of those will likely come from the NL Central, who we dogged it against. And don't forget, we played the Tigers very well last year. There really isn't a lot of improvement to be had there.

DSpivack
02-14-2008, 04:56 PM
I think we have a chance to truly contend...some of it is based on KW's moves and some based on the make up of the Tigers and the Indians. Tigers pitching staff has alot of question marks and the Indians every day starting line up (Casey Blake at 3B?) is not overwhelming and Borowski is their closer.

"On paper" I'd put us at 3rd base. But if their weaknesses are exposed and our "question marks" go our way (Contreras, Floyd, Danks, Quentin primarily) then we have a shot.

Yeah, our offense should be good, as should the 'pen. It all comes down Contreras, Danks, and Floyd. I think Contreras will be okay, but not that good, Danks should be improved, but I have zero confidence in Gavin Floyd.

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 04:58 PM
Because we're a team that most experts feel has no "present." Now we have no "future" as well.

If it's between winning now and prospects, of course I want to win now. But the chances of winning now are so slight... Smaller than those here want to admit. Because not only does our rotation blow chunks, but two of the best three teams in baseball are likely in our division.

OK, then put together a reasonable package for Konerko, Dye, Crede and whomever else you'd like to trade.

My point is, putting marginal prospects on a marginal farm system is not going to help. We have a better chance of succeeding this year and next than we do building a respectable farm system in the next 3-5 years by trading our premium major league talent.

guillen4life13
02-14-2008, 04:58 PM
I just posted it because I thought you guys might be interested. I couldn't remember the reporter's name, otherwise I would have said it on the thread title.

Didn't realize the phrase "under the radar" would get such a reaction from you guys. It probably doesn't fit our situation. I just like the idea of the team not being expected to compete. If players feel disrespected by what these guys are saying about them, it can be great motivation for them to prove these guys wrong. If all the veterans play close to their career norms, the team can contend for 3rd place. If Danks and/or Floyd show significant improvement, you can pencil them in for 3rd place. Only one of Quentin or Owens has to shine to complete the outfield. The only ? in the infield is 2B, but one of Richar or Ramirez (or Uribe if he's still here), a winner will show himself by midseason. The 'pen just got a lot better.

I was really pessimistic about this team until the Swisher trade and the good news about Quentin's health.

The wild cards, IMO, are Contreras and Floyd. I hope Jose can rebound and wonder if and how much his divorce might have hurt his performance. That's a traumatic event to endure. I have cautious optimism with him. Floyd... I just don't know. KW has so much confidence in him it seems, but I really don't think Floyd will end up being a major league starting pitcher in the future, but he's still young, so we'll see.

munchman33
02-14-2008, 05:00 PM
OK, then put together a reasonable package for Konerko, Dye, Crede and whomever else you'd like to trade.

My point is, putting marginal prospects on a marginal farm system is not going to help. We have a better chance of succeeding this year and next than we do building a respectable farm system in the next 3-5 years by trading our premium major league talent.

I don't agree with that at all. Trading Konerko and Dye would go a long way in restocking our minor league system. Especially Konerko. He's got a lot of value with his production and contract.

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 05:00 PM
Actually, most of those will likely come from the NL Central, who we dogged it against. And don't forget, we played the Tigers very well last year. There really isn't a lot of improvement to be had there.

We play PIT, COL, LAD, SF and the Cubs this year in interleague play.

munchman33
02-14-2008, 05:02 PM
We play PIT, COL, LAD, SF and the Cubs this year in interleague play.

We're boned.

Haha...actually, nice to see PIT and SF there.

spiffie
02-14-2008, 05:02 PM
I am confused by this argument. Why is it possible for a team to have an 18 game negative turnaround one season but not add some good talent and get those 18 or even more games back the next year?

Are only big negative turnarounds possible?
Obviously teams can have big positive turnarounds. It just strikes me as unlikely to happen with anywhere from 2-4 arms in the rotation that are unlikely to be anything more than mediocre.

If the Sox had kept the same offense as last year, made the same pen moves, but gone out and somehow picked up a Haren or a Bedard I would be much more likely to say they could make a big positive move this year. But the 22 or so games they will likely need to improve (since most of the time it takes 93-94 wins to make the playoffs) just seems hard to envision when Contreras, Danks, and Floyd are getting ball 3 out of 5 days.

areilly
02-14-2008, 05:03 PM
Didn't realize the phrase "under the radar" would get such a reaction from you guys. It probably doesn't fit our situation. I just like the idea of the team not being expected to compete. If players feel disrespected by what these guys are saying about them, it can be great motivation for them to prove these guys wrong.

By your logic, we should also be very, very afraid of the Orioles, Royals and Devil Rays. And watch out for those Pirates, who ESPN.com gave a feature story to declaring they won't finish .500 any time soon.

:rolleyes:

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 05:05 PM
I don't agree with that at all. Trading Konerko and Dye would go a long way in restocking our minor league system. Especially Konerko. He's got a lot of value with his production and contract.

Konerko is coming off his worst campaign in four years and he just turned 30. His trade value is the lowest it has been since 2003. I really would like to see the package you think we could have gotten for him two months ago.

doublem23
02-14-2008, 05:09 PM
I don't agree with that at all. Trading Konerko and Dye would go a long way in restocking our minor league system. Especially Konerko. He's got a lot of value with his production and contract.

:fobbgod:
I like the way you think. You can never fail building for tomorrow because tomorrow never comes.

:violin:

Cry me a ****ing river. Everyone knows how much you think of a 20-something kid who's never played organized ball above the A-level, but there's plenty of evidence in this thread to suggest the Sox might not actually be a total lost cause in 2008, and yet all you keep doing is chasing your tail in a circle with your neverending KW-bashing.

doublem23
02-14-2008, 05:11 PM
By your logic, we should also be very, very afraid of the Orioles, Royals and Devil Rays. And watch out for those Pirates, who ESPN.com gave a feature story to declaring they won't finish .500 any time soon.

:rolleyes:

Except that the Orioles, Royals, Devil Rays, and Pirates don't have a roster made of players who won 90 games in the Majors oh, 1 god damn year ago.

I forgot, they also don't have these:

http://kelly.jefferson.net/soxforum/blog/whitesoxring.jpg

santo=dorf
02-14-2008, 05:11 PM
I'm really getting tired of people trying to twist an old and inaccurate 2005 prediction into a reason why the 2008 White Sox will be contenders. Just stop it already.

Last year BP predicted the Sox would finish 72-90 with a 4th place finish. Does that mean this year whatever they predict for the Sox should be taken as fact? Oh right, they just got "lucky" with their picks. :rolleyes:


Who really cares about predictions? They're fun to look at and then go look back upon to see how accurate they were, but ultimately they mean absolutely nothing.

spiffie
02-14-2008, 05:11 PM
Three (7.1%) of the last 42 division races have produced three 90+ win baseball teams. If the White Sox win 18 extra games where do you think they're going to come from? Fair share would assume two wins each from the Indians and Tigers. There's not an infinite number of wins to be had. Of course, we know you're not buying into a 90-win campaign; hell, I don't even think you're buying into a 70-win campaign. But if you tell me in October that we win 90 games, I can say with about 93% confidence that we won't finish in third place. I like my odds. Of course, getting to the playoffs is another story.
90 wins rarely gets an AL Central team into the playoffs, and its getting harder as the decade wears on. For an ALC team to make the playoffs they would have needed to win:
2000 - 91
2001 - 91
2002 - 94
2003 - 90
2004 - 92
2005 - 93
2006 - 95
2007 - 94

On average it takes 92.5 wins for an ALC team to get to the postseason.

kittle42
02-14-2008, 05:16 PM
Well thank god you're hear to show us all the way. I don't even know why we keep this message board up and running any more, since your thoughts and opinions are waaay more important and profound than the other 6,000 members here.

BTW, what were the Sox picked to finish in 2005? I wonder where anyone would have gotten precedence to question the all-mighty sports vanguard in Bristol?

Ha, ha! 2005 reference! I win! :cool:

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 05:16 PM
90 wins rarely gets an AL Central team into the playoffs, and its getting harder as the decade wears on. For an ALC team to make the playoffs they would have needed to win:


Read the last line in my post. There's no way in hell 90 wins gets us into the playoffs - not with the top tier teams in the East and West.

spiffie
02-14-2008, 05:16 PM
Except that the Orioles, Royals, Devil Rays, and Pirates don't have a roster made of players who won 90 games in the Majors oh, 1 god damn year ago.

I forgot, they also don't have these:

http://kelly.jefferson.net/soxforum/blog/whitesoxring.jpg
Well, considering that if KW gets his way and trades Crede and Uribe before the season, the Sox will have 7 out of 25 guys from the 2005 team (AJ, Konerko, Dye, Ozuna, Buehrle, Contreras, Jenks), and 10 out of 25 guys (AJ, PK, Dye, PO, Thome, MB, JC, Javy, Thornton, BBJ) who played all of 2006 with us I'm not sure how much weight that carries.

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 05:17 PM
I'm really getting tired of people trying to twist an old and inaccurate 2005 prediction into a reason why the 2008 White Sox will be contenders. Just stop it already.

Last year BP predicted the Sox would finish 72-90 with a 4th place finish. Does that mean this year whatever they predict for the Sox should be taken as fact? Oh right, they just got "lucky" with their picks. :rolleyes:


Who really cares about predictions? They're fun to look at and then go look back upon to see how accurate they were, but ultimately they mean absolutely nothing.

I think I agree with something santo just said. Wasn't there something earlier about someone being delusional? - well it's gotta be me now.

kittle42
02-14-2008, 05:17 PM
That was my point. You claimed that most here at WSI are basically kool-aide drinkers (I know, you didn't use that term but I believe that was your point). You called most here at WSI "Cub-like." I pointed to the poster who predicted 83 wins as an example of someone here who is very un-cub-like.

I never said "most."

spiffie
02-14-2008, 05:17 PM
Read the last line in my post. There's no way in hell 90 wins gets us into the playoffs - not with the top tier teams in the East and West.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, rather I was illustrating your point. :D:

kobo
02-14-2008, 05:19 PM
I don't agree with that at all. Trading Konerko and Dye would go a long way in restocking our minor league system. Especially Konerko. He's got a lot of value with his production and contract.
You honestly believe that the Sox could get 4-6 quality prospects for Konerko and Dye? Because that's what it would take to get rid of those guys. And when I say quality prospects, I mean guys who are 2-3 years away from making an impact at the ML level. Even still, are you really ready to sit back and struggle for the next 2-3 years just for the chance/possibility/hope of having a team that can contend in 3 years? Because as much as having highly touted prospects may help our system, there is no guarantee any of them are going to actually pan out and help this team in the future.

The way it stands right now I don't see the Sox contending this year, but I do see them winning between 80-85 games. If Ramirez pans out in AAA this year and is the player KW thinks he is, then there is no need to sign Cabrera to a deal. They can let him walk and take the draft picks for letting him walk. That helps the farm, and at the same time keeps the Sox competitive. The nucleus of the team will be a mix of old and young guys, and if they are a SP away from truly contending (which I believe) then adding a SP next year to a team that wins 80-85 games could be what is needed to get back to the playoffs.

areilly
02-14-2008, 05:23 PM
Except that the Orioles, Royals, Devil Rays, and Pirates don't have a roster made of players who won 90 games in the Majors oh, 1 god damn year ago.


Your love of some stranger's jewelry notwithstanding, why can't the converse be true? Why must it be forgotten that the Indians have a roster made of players who just won 96 games? Why must it be forgotten that the Tigers have a roster made up of players who won 95 games the same year as the Sox' magical 90-win third place season?

Call me whatever you want, and hold out whatever hope gets you through, but the fact is that it means more that they lost 90 games in 2007 than it does that they won 90 in 2006. They may have rid themselves of the nightmare bullpen but the anemic offense is still mostly intact and the rotation got a whole lot shakier. You can not make a well-informed, justified case that this team will be a powerhouse. You can root for them, you can hope for the best, but there is no good reason to think they're any better than third place as-is.

But hey, whatever, I don't have a ring.

Oblong
02-14-2008, 05:31 PM
but the anemic offense is still mostly intact

I think the offense will be the best part of the Sox.

This column tells me Law has it out for the White Sox. I usually refrain from saying that about national guys because I think it gets overblown and fans can be too sensitive. But I have no attachment to the White Sox and it's a crock to say they had the worst offseason in the league. Yes the moves made may not work out but they were solid moves and not moves that took a lot of risk, other than the prospects given up. The riskiest move in my opinion was the bullpen signings and that's only a risk if money's an issue later on.

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 05:40 PM
They may have rid themselves of the nightmare bullpen but the anemic offense is still mostly intact and the rotation got a whole lot shakier.


Andrew, you don't truly believe Konerko and Dye will struggle a ton next year, do you? How about a full year of Josh Fields and addition of an up-and-coming switch-hitter? Not to mention a tremendous upgrade at shortstop, in someone who will actually put the ball in play. I can't make a real case for the starting pitching, but the consensus around here seems to be that the offense will be a lot better.

I'm an eternal optimist when it comes to this team (read my posts and that won't be surprising), but logically I can make a very valid case for the offense and bullpen being MUCH improved. My faith in the rotation comes from following Gavin Floyd's entire career since he was drafted, and having a lot of confidence in his breaking ball. I know there's not many people who will back me up on that, but that's why I can't wait for Opening Day! :smile:

spiffie
02-14-2008, 05:45 PM
Andrew, you don't truly believe Konerko and Dye will struggle a ton next year, do you?
For two guys who "struggled a ton" last year, they weren't far off their career averages. Dye was 20 points down in OBP but right on the button for his career SLG. Konerko was a whole 7 points below his career OPS. They didn't really do that much worse than usual. Problem is they were both coming off monster years in 2006.

rdivaldi
02-14-2008, 05:54 PM
For two guys who "struggled a ton" last year, they weren't far off their career averages. Dye was 20 points down in OBP but right on the button for his career SLG. Konerko was a whole 7 points below his career OPS. They didn't really do that much worse than usual. Problem is they were both coming off monster years in 2006.

While you are correct about Konerko being a little of his "career" average, he was waaaaaaay down compared to 2004- 2006:

2004: .894
2005: .909
2006: .932
2007: .841

Dye also had his worst season as a White Sox player by quite a bit:

2005: .846
2006: 1.006
2007: .804

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 05:55 PM
For two guys who "struggled a ton" last year, they weren't far off their career averages. Dye was 20 points down in OBP but right on the button for his career SLG. Konerko was a whole 7 points below his career OPS. They didn't really do that much worse than usual. Problem is they were both coming off monster years in 2006.

"Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it".

Dye's average with runners in scoring position was more than 30 points off his career average. Konerko's was down more than 20 points. Those are the guys driving in runs, and they missed some opportunities last year that they hadn't been missing in the past. That's what I meant by struggling.

btrain929
02-14-2008, 05:58 PM
Read the last line in my post. There's no way in hell 90 wins gets us into the playoffs - not with the top tier teams in the East and West.

Boston, and the Angels will be tough, but still with a mediocre offense.

Is there anybody else we should be afraid of? The Mariners overpaid underachieving position players? Or the Yankees overpaid OF and young unproven back of the rotation?

kjhanson
02-14-2008, 06:02 PM
Is there anybody else we should be afraid of? The Mariners overpaid underachieving position players? Or the Yankees overpaid OF and young unproven back of the rotation?

Erik Bedard won't hurt a team that won 88 games last year.

russ99
02-14-2008, 06:58 PM
I don't get all the Linebrink bashing.

Sure the contract is a bit excessive, but that's what it takes to add talent on the FA market. I didn't see these same writers ripping the Cubs when they made 2 similar moves signing Howry and Eyre for well above market salaries...

Also I've followed Linebrink for years, since he came up with Houston. He's a solid set-up guy.

The reason he's had a few iffy seasons is because the Padres have been jerking him around. He proved he was an effective setup guy 3 years ago and since then, the Pads have time-after-time passed him by when it came time to move someone into the setup role behind Hoffman. They actually demoted him out of his then usually solid 7th inning role last spring (possibly driving his value down for a re-sign) and then dealt him to Milwaukee. Other than a few shaky outings, he did fairly well overall with the Brewers in a pennant race.

As long as the Sox put him in the 8th and ask him to hold the fort and not switch him around to different roles, he'll be great. He may even be the FA signing of the year, considering how few AL hitters have seen his stuff.

I've personally been clamoring for the Sox to get him to hold down set-up for about 2 years. :D:

KyWhiSoxFan
02-14-2008, 07:54 PM
Cleveland did absolutely nothing and they had a better off season than the White Sox? Huh? I'm not saying a pennant is imminent, but the Sox have improved themselves. I did not realize their whole offseason was predicated on how Linebrink does in 2008 Swisher and Dotel apparently don't count.

Come on, Linebrink, we really need you. The fate of the free world is hanging in the balance.

pmck003
02-14-2008, 08:16 PM
I think Keith Law did his job well getting all this discussion going.

Frontman
02-14-2008, 08:28 PM
I think Keith Law did his job well getting all this discussion going.

Does he get paid per post, or per user involved in the discussion?

I refuse to say "It's over, they won't contend, what was KW thinking, etc" until I see the team play for a few weeks.

Nothing on paper means squat. The only thing that matters is what happens when the games are played. Momentum is only as good as today's starting pitcher.

Until the Sox are mathematically eliminated, I don't write anything off for a season, period.

Anyone remember who was the Sox opponent was in 2005 World Series? Exactly how bad did their season start? 15 game under .500 at one point, if I'm not mistaken.

The Astros turned it around AND MADE THE SERIES; not just the playoffs.

Let the Sox play the games first, then give me a report card. Don't give me this "Well, they didn't do enough to contend" as you never know.

Hell, the Royals can win the division for all we know!

jabrch
02-14-2008, 08:34 PM
There is a distinct odor coming from this thread...

Frontman
02-14-2008, 08:35 PM
There is a distinct odor coming from this thread...

Look, I'm gonna shower once I get my son to bed. Seriously. :wink:

Soxfest
02-15-2008, 02:20 AM
Worst in AL that is not correct to me!:?:

fquaye149
02-15-2008, 08:50 AM
I think Keith Law did his job well getting all this discussion going.

Contrary to what you (and a lot of posters on this board) think, the job description for sports journalist does not boil down to:

"GET AS MANY PEOPLE TO READ YOUR COLUMN AS POSSIBLE NO MATTER WHAT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS OR STANDARDS OF ETHICS THAT TAKES"

voodoochile
02-15-2008, 09:14 AM
Contrary to what you (and a lot of posters on this board) think, the job description for sports journalist does not boil down to:

"GET AS MANY PEOPLE TO READ YOUR COLUMN AS POSSIBLE NO MATTER WHAT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS OR STANDARDS OF ETHICS THAT TAKES"

Unfortunately that's what the shouting heads have been told though. Or at least that's the way they act...

doublem23
02-15-2008, 09:41 AM
Contrary to what you (and a lot of posters on this board) think, the job description for sports journalist does not boil down to:

"GET AS MANY PEOPLE TO READ YOUR COLUMN AS POSSIBLE NO MATTER WHAT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS OR STANDARDS OF ETHICS THAT TAKES"

Obviosuly these guys are held to some standard, but do you really believe there are major sports media outlets that would take good, honest research and analysis (which no one really wants to read), over controversial, "stir-the-pot" stuff that always draws readers?

I don't. It's still a business, and business still boils down to dollars and cents.

assrevolution
02-15-2008, 10:25 AM
If the Sox didn't sign Linebrink who else was going to fill the bullpen? If the contract was cheaper then would it be a better deal? If so, how many million dollars lower? See how this reasoning leads to nothing about how the games will play out?

It's nice to see everyone getting excited about the '08 season regardless of how well you think the Sox will do. There are surprises in baseball every year, and the 'experts' will continue to eat their hats. Sports analytics are as meaningful as political commentary, both useless. Watch the games and decide for yourself what's really happening. You don't need some douchebag with a loud and excitable voice to tell you how it is (my voice is soft and relaxed...).

assrevolution
02-15-2008, 10:27 AM
Hell, the Royals can win the division for all we know!

If the Sox fall out of contention I can say that's who I'd be rooting for.

soxwon
02-15-2008, 11:14 AM
ESPN Lick me.
Da rev predicts atleast a wild card for us, if not the division.
Ive been told-a by the Baseball Gods, to expect a sensational start and a sensational season, for Da Sox Side Tough Guys.
You gots to Believe-AAAAAA.

kaufsox
02-15-2008, 11:34 AM
Contrary to what you (and a lot of posters on this board) think, the job description for sports journalist does not boil down to:

"GET AS MANY PEOPLE TO READ YOUR COLUMN AS POSSIBLE NO MATTER WHAT LEVEL OF ANALYSIS OR STANDARDS OF ETHICS THAT TAKES"

what was unethical about Law's column? It's his opinion right? and like bellybuttons...

kittle42
02-15-2008, 11:40 AM
ESPN Lick me.
Da rev predicts atleast a wild card for us, if not the division.
Ive been told-a by the Baseball Gods, to expect a sensational start and a sensational season, for Da Sox Side Tough Guys.
You gots to Believe-AAAAAA.

JBL is a Wrestling God.

kitekrazy
02-15-2008, 11:45 AM
There are people out there who actually pay attention to what ESPN has to say?:o:

I give them as much attention as I do the HSN.

soxwon
02-15-2008, 11:58 AM
JBL is a Wrestling God.

so he says, i had a few brews with bradshaw about 10 yrs ago at the stay out lounge on manheim.
back when he was a tough guy.

spiffie
02-15-2008, 12:14 PM
"Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit it".

Dye's average with runners in scoring position was more than 30 points off his career average. Konerko's was down more than 20 points. Those are the guys driving in runs, and they missed some opportunities last year that they hadn't been missing in the past. That's what I meant by struggling.
Problem is with sample sizes so small there's no way to reasonably assume any one trend will happen in a given year. To wit: Dye's OPS with RISP the last five years where he played most games:
2007: 736 (418 SLG)
2006: 1137 (716 SLG)
2005: 754 (427 SLG)
2004: 700 (363 SLG)
2002: 780 (414 SLG)

Outside of 2006, he tends to hover in the 700's in OPS with RISP, and his SLG is almost always a little about 400. Sure he might catch a few more walks here and there, but last year wasn't a terribly un-JD like year, even with RISP. Now obviously if he somehow channels 2006 again then all bets are off.

fquaye149
02-15-2008, 12:43 PM
Obviosuly these guys are held to some standard, but do you really believe there are major sports media outlets that would take good, honest research and analysis (which no one really wants to read), over controversial, "stir-the-pot" stuff that always draws readers?

I don't. It's still a business, and business still boils down to dollars and cents.

If that's their job description, I stand corrected.

I doubt Skip Bayless and Jay Mariotti, even, would describe themselves as the tabloid journalists they most obviously are.

fquaye149
02-15-2008, 12:44 PM
what was unethical about Law's column? It's his opinion right? and like bellybuttons...

I haven't attacked Law in this thread.

I attacked the idea that "by causing controversy," and by causing controversy ALONE, "he has done his job".

See the post I quoted for the opinion I am refuting.

hint: It's not Law's.

fquaye149
02-15-2008, 12:45 PM
Unfortunately that's what the shouting heads have been told though. Or at least that's the way they act...

I doubt they've been told it, nor that they even necessarily think it.

I think we can infer that, but it's certainly not "their job" any more than a CEO's job is to use dishonest means to drive profits up....

Sure, if they do, that benefits the company, but it's really not what "Their jobs is"

kaufsox
02-15-2008, 01:21 PM
I haven't attacked Law in this thread.

I attacked the idea that "by causing controversy," and by causing controversy ALONE, "he has done his job".

See the post I quoted for the opinion I am refuting.

hint: It's not Law's.

then I think you're attack is misguided. The post you quote said "I think Law is doing a good job by getting all of this discussion going" or words to that effect.

What is wrong with that? Discussion is, I hope, still a good thing. Law thinks the Sox had a terrible off season. Obviously, he is depriving some village of its idiot, but he's entitled to his opinion. He or I will be proven wrong by June.

1989
02-15-2008, 01:34 PM
who the **** is keith law?

dickallen15
02-15-2008, 01:34 PM
Law talks out of both sides of his mouth. He slams Gio Gonzalez as a prospect and likes Swisher but can't figure why the White Sox would trade prospects like Gonzalez for Swisher.
Of course it works both ways. If Laws says something positive about the White Sox, he is considered a solid source. Anything negative, he knows no more about baseball than the average guy walking the streets of Barcelona.

Jurr
02-15-2008, 01:52 PM
Law talks out of both sides of his mouth. He slams Gio Gonzalez as a prospect and likes Swisher but can't figure why the White Sox would trade prospects like Gonzalez for Swisher.
Of course it works both ways. If Laws says something positive about the White Sox, he is considered a solid source. Anything negative, he knows no more about baseball than the average guy walking the streets of Barcelona.
Agreed. If he lauded the Sox management's moves, everyone would be chirping Law's praises to the mountaintops.
I think most intelligent Sox fans go into this season with tempered expectations. It's just so hard to gauge how good this team could possibly be. Will Broadway come up and set the world on fire? Will Danks and Floyd resemble big leaguers? Will Contreras turn it around? Is our lineup showing its age?

If a couple of these questions get answered in the affirmative, we're on to something great. If not, it could be a ho-hum year. That's what makes the game so damn exciting. Prognosticators be damned.

fquaye149
02-15-2008, 01:53 PM
then I think you're attack is misguided. The post you quote said "I think Law is doing a good job by getting all of this discussion going" or words to that effect.

What is wrong with that? Discussion is, I hope, still a good thing. Law thinks the Sox had a terrible off season. Obviously, he is depriving some village of its idiot, but he's entitled to his opinion. He or I will be proven wrong by June.

Discussion's fine, but that wasn't the purpose of his column. His column was to take a stance and formulate a case.

I don't think he did a horrible job of that, and I'm not saying he failed in that respect. What I'm saying is that "getting discussion going" has very little to do with it.


I'm just sick of the "look how clever I am by figuring out the very basic concept of how marketing works" posts

for instance:

"Mariotti sucks"
"Well, he gets you talking about him. That means he succeeded!"

or

"I think Law's missing this point and had a bad article"
"Well he got a discussion going so he succeeded"

spiffie
02-15-2008, 02:42 PM
Discussion's fine, but that wasn't the purpose of his column. His column was to take a stance and formulate a case.

I don't think he did a horrible job of that, and I'm not saying he failed in that respect. What I'm saying is that "getting discussion going" has very little to do with it.


I'm just sick of the "look how clever I am by figuring out the very basic concept of how marketing works" posts

for instance:

"Mariotti sucks"
"Well, he gets you talking about him. That means he succeeded!"

or

"I think Law's missing this point and had a bad article"
"Well he got a discussion going so he succeeded"
To be fair it wasn't a column that is causing all this. Is was two single remarks made in a chat. Yes he made a point that is hard to agree with for all but the most pessimistic of fans, but he never really got a chance to elaborate on it. And the sense that he is trying to stir **** up with that comment (as has been expressed in the thread) seems unlikely. He was asked who he thought had the worst offseason. He said the White Sox. I don't agree (seems to me the Twins had a pretty bad one, and the Yanks could even be said to have not done very well at improving themselves) but I would like to see an explanation. Now if the explanation is "Kenny Williams is an idiot and he wishes he was Billy Beane" then sure, hand me a pitchfork and a torch and we'll storm Law Castle. But I suspect it will be a more reasoned explanation if it is ever given. It will still be wrong in my opinion, but I think Law's crime here is bad baseball analysis rather than bomb-throwing.

Now if it was Dayn Perry...

kittle42
02-15-2008, 02:53 PM
Of course it works both ways. If Laws says something positive about the White Sox, he is considered a solid source. Anything negative, he knows no more about baseball than the average guy walking the streets of Barcelona.

Welcome to WSI. Even Mariotti has occasionally been lauded in these parts (shudder....).

FarWestChicago
02-16-2008, 09:08 AM
If that's their job description, I stand corrected.

I doubt Skip Bayless and Jay Mariotti, even, would describe themselves as the tabloid journalists they most obviously are.I would think Clueless or the Moron would both respond to the question of what is their job description by saying, "**** off. I make more money than you can dream of peon". It's a business to them and that's why they are successful at manipulating the minds of the masses.

PalehosePlanet
02-16-2008, 03:48 PM
I think Keith Law did his job well getting all this discussion going.

I think Law made up his mind about our off-season on December 15th. He made plenty of nasty remarks then, and now many moves later he's being hard-headed and sticking to his 12/15 words.

Also, FWIW, I don't think ANYONE wins 90 games in our division this year. I know you grass-is-always-greener-on-the-other-side guys don't want to hear it, but the teams in the AL Central will beat up on each other.
1) Cleveland 89-73
2) Detroit 87-75
3) White Sox 85-77
4) Twins 77-85
5) Royals 70-92

kjhanson
02-16-2008, 03:53 PM
4) Twins 77-85


Huh?

DrCrawdad
02-16-2008, 03:54 PM
That was my point. You claimed that most here at WSI are basically kool-aide drinkers (I know, you didn't use that term but I believe that was your point). You called most here at WSI "Cub-like." I pointed to the poster who predicted 83 wins as an example of someone here who is very un-cub-like.

That person's comment about WSI being Cub-like in that WSI folks are pollyanna-ish is ridiculous, trash talking garbage. Sox fans in general are NOT pollyannas. Just because some Sox fans are hopeful and not negative does NOT put them on the level with Cubbie fans.

PalehosePlanet
02-16-2008, 04:09 PM
Huh?

They lost Santana, Garza and Silva, but Baker and Perkins should be able to make up some of those innings. Overall they'll be slightly worse than last year, but with a solid bullpen they'll hang in there and still be semi-respectable. They also get Liriano back.

Are you thinking way worse than 77-85?

skottyj242
02-16-2008, 04:17 PM
Whatever. Thanks to Ryan Dempster, MLB doesn't have to play any games this season anyway.


http://i.infoplease.com/images/blackpower.jpg

turners56
02-16-2008, 04:21 PM
Lol worst offseason...xD. '05 repeat :D.

Eastern Seaboard Programing Network phails once again.

I remember Chris Berman near tears (he sounded like it) after the Sox swept Boston in 05, that was great.

Tragg
02-16-2008, 04:22 PM
A couple of points on his comments. First, this notion that we should "rebuild" like the Indians did....congratulations to the INdians, because despite all the hype they've received from the likes of Law, last year was their first playoff appearance in 7 or 8 seasons. I bet we contend before then, without the rebuilding.
Second, I am not an advocate of big contracts to middle relievers. However, if he's right and Linebrink is ineffective after a couple of seasons, so what - it's only $4 mill per year out of a budget of over 100Mill per year. It's not like it will put the whole team in a straight jacket if it doesn't work out.

Lip Man 1
02-16-2008, 07:01 PM
What Law fails to understand (or perhaps he deliberately overlooks this to make his point) is that Sox fans will not tolerate 'rebuilding' especially so soon after a World Series title and a 90 win season.

I think some of the organization would like to have a complete rebuilding process (3 to 5 years) but they would lose millions and millions from the attendance drop, sponsors leaving, lower radio and TV rights and so forth.

They simply CAN NOT afford to 'rebuild.'

Why is that so hard for Mr. Law to understand?

Even if the Sox "only" win 83 games or so that's still a significant improvement from 2007, it keeps attendance up, keeps the sponsor deals coming and puts more money available for the 2008 off season.

And that down side to that is what exactly?

:?:

Lip

munchman33
02-16-2008, 07:12 PM
What Law fails to understand (or perhaps he deliberately overlooks this to make his point) is that Sox fans will not tolerate 'rebuilding' especially so soon after a World Series title and a 90 win season.

I think some of the organization would like to have a complete rebuilding process (3 to 5 years) but they would lose millions and millions from the attendance drop, sponsors leaving, lower radio and TV rights and so forth.

They simply CAN NOT afford to 'rebuild.'

Why is that so hard for Mr. Law to understand?

Even if the Sox "only" win 83 games or so that's still a significant improvement from 2007, it keeps attendance up, keeps the sponsor deals coming and puts more money available for the 2008 off season.

And that down side to that is what exactly?

:?:

Lip

I'm a sox fan. I will tolerate rebuilding.

We won a World Series in 2005. Not 90 years ago. And last year, an aging core produced 90 losses. I think the bulk of our fan base could take a rebuilding. This reaching for straws crap is going to make it a lot longer until our next championship than it needs to be. We aren't going to win a championship with this team. Sure, it COULD happen. Miracles in sports do rarely happen, yes. But with our rotation I wouldn't give us much better a chance than a team like Kansas City or Minnesota. It's a shot in the dark. We played that way for the bulk of nine decades, and it produced nothing buy heartache. I don't want to go into each year a shot in the dark because our GM can't rebuild.

It's time to rebuild.

Lip Man 1
02-16-2008, 07:25 PM
Munch:

You may be right, the majority of Sox fans might agree to rebuilding. It's possible but I just don't think that's the case. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But the point about a dramatic attendance drop if this were to happen is still valid. Would the Sox, can the Sox afford to lose that kind of revenue? Could they tolerate going back to 1.7 million in attendance?

Fortunately we won't have to find out, at least not until Kenny and Ozzie are gone. They don't work that way and I agree with them.

Rebuilding is for the Pittsburgh's and Kansas City's and Tampa Bay's and Oakland's of the world.

Not for a major market franchise.

Lip

Oblong
02-16-2008, 07:27 PM
Even if you think rebuilding is the right thing to do this team is not that far away from being able to contend. It's not like there's a bunch of aging players on their last legs. The acquisitions of Swisher and Quentin is a look to the future. There does come a time with champions that the GM has to realize that the core will probably not be able to contend for another one, I think th Sox have one more year left to figure that out. If not, then guys like Thome/Dye/Konerko can be shopped around for youth.

munchman33
02-16-2008, 07:45 PM
Munch:

You may be right, the majority of Sox fans might agree to rebuilding. It's possible but I just don't think that's the case. We'll just have to agree to disagree. But the point about a dramatic attendance drop if this were to happen is still valid. Would the Sox, can the Sox afford to lose that kind of revenue? Could they tolerate going back to 1.7 million in attendance?

Fortunately we won't have to find out, at least not until Kenny and Ozzie are gone. They don't work that way and I agree with them.

Rebuilding is for the Pittsburgh's and Kansas City's and Tampa Bay's and Oakland's of the world.

Not for a major market franchise.

Lip

If you feel attendance would drop that drastically, then if we lose 90 games again this year what happens? Fans come because they're spending? I doubt it. There is a strong likelyhood we'll have two 5+ era pitchers in our rotation. We have little in terms of backup. And what if Javy regresses? What if Mark gets hurt or has a year like 2006? What if Danks doesn't develop?

This team could actually be worse than last year. Then do the fans come back in 2009? We don't spend enough to fix the problems that way. And we have very little left to bargain with outside of the 25 man roster. If things don't play out exactly how Kenny is banking, we're absolutely ****ed for the next five years.

Lip Man 1
02-16-2008, 07:48 PM
Munch:

I conducted my latest interview for WSI on Tuesday with the highest ranking member of the Sox organization to ever agree to an interview with our web site. I'm going to reveal a very small portion of the interview because it is relevant to this discussion. PHG has the complete interview and will post it when he feels it's appropriate.

The Sox organization is well aware of what could happen if they were to "rebuild" or if the club were to go down the toilet for any extended period of time.

The section came from my question about what has been learned about Sox fans (and it is not the complete answer...)

Take it for what it may be worth to you.

“About the only thing that I wish I could change long-term is that sometimes the passion from our fans can be a weakness. What I mean is that a lot of Sox fans are so passionate, so into the team, that if things aren’t going well... they get mad, they get fed up… they say, ‘I’m not going to watch these guys, I’m not going to listen to them and I’m not going to show up at the game."

Lip

Tragg
02-16-2008, 07:55 PM
If you feel attendance would drop that drastically, then if we lose 90 games again this year what happens? Fans come because they're spending? I doubt it. There is a strong likelyhood we'll have two 5+ era pitchers in our rotation. We have little in terms of backup. And what if Javy regresses? What if Mark gets hurt or has a year like 2006? What if Danks doesn't develop?

This team could actually be worse than last year. Then do the fans come back in 2009? We don't spend enough to fix the problems that way. And we have very little left to bargain with outside of the 25 man roster. If things don't play out exactly how Kenny is banking, we're absolutely ****ed for the next five years.
Why should we rebuild? Toronto's been rebuilding for a decade +....how's that worked out? Cleveland - woo hoo, 1 playoff appearance in 8 years. We'll see when Atlanta reaches the playoffs again - my guess is a long time from now. But they did pretty well for 15+ years, without rebuilding.
One could have made the rebuilding argument in 2005.
Now, what the Sox did this offseason may not have been the thing to do. But there certainly was no reason to rebuild either. That's what small market teams do.

I'd be shocked if the Sox are worse than last year. We had some really bad players on last year's team.

ode to veeck
02-16-2008, 07:59 PM
Keith Law belongs in what's the score

Lip Man 1
02-16-2008, 08:04 PM
Tragg:

I would also add, to try to counter Munch's point, that yes the Sox could be as bad as last season but not for lack of trying. To me there's a big difference between throwing up your hands and saying, "we can't compete, we're going to rebuild for the next x number of years," and making moves that just don't turn out.

I understand the team is still bad in both cases but if I were in charge I'd rather make mistakes based on commission rather then of omission. I get that same sense from the folks running the show with the Sox.

And yes I'm still very concerned about the starting rotation, it is very suspect. I still hope though it can be improved by either a bargain basement free agent signing (low risk/high reward type) or when Crede is traded, getting a pitcher who can contribute now at the major league level instead of prospects who may turn out to be the next Jack McDowell and Alex Fernandez but whom the law of averages says will probably be closer to the next Scott Ruffcorn or Joe Valentine.

kittle42
02-16-2008, 08:14 PM
That person's comment about WSI being Cub-like in that WSI folks are pollyanna-ish is ridiculous, trash talking garbage. Sox fans in general are NOT pollyannas. Just because some Sox fans are hopeful and not negative does NOT put them on the level with Cubbie fans.

You're the Cubs expert, Crawdad.

munchman33
02-16-2008, 08:29 PM
Munch:

I conducted my latest interview for WSI on Tuesday with the highest ranking member of the Sox organization to ever agree to an interview with our web site. I'm going to reveal a very small portion of the interview because it is relevant to this discussion. PHG has the complete interview and will post it when he feels it's appropriate.

The Sox organization is well aware of what could happen if they were to "rebuild" or if the club were to go down the toilet for any extended period of time.

The section came from my question about what has been learned about Sox fans (and it is not the complete answer...)

Take it for what it may be worth to you.

ďAbout the only thing that I wish I could change long-term is that sometimes the passion from our fans can be a weakness. What I mean is that a lot of Sox fans are so passionate, so into the team, that if things arenít going well... they get mad, they get fed upÖ they say, ĎIím not going to watch these guys, Iím not going to listen to them and Iím not going to show up at the game."

Lip

I'm surprised someone in the organization actually came out and said that. I look forward to reading that interview.

I know that personally, I will watch regardless. But I do agree that a large portion of our fanbase will react in some way. And it will probably be at the gate. I'm just worried that it'll happen regardless this year. And if it's between being young/upcoming/mediocre or old/bad, I'd much rather the former because there's light at the end of the tunnel. It's easier to spend around young talent than it is to add to expensive players you can't drop (like Contreras and Uribe).

Then again, maybe Kenny's right about all three question mark starters and it'll all be moot. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

btrain929
02-16-2008, 08:46 PM
I'm surprised someone in the organization actually came out and said that. I look forward to reading that interview.

I know that personally, I will watch regardless. But I do agree that a large portion of our fanbase will react in some way. And it will probably be at the gate. I'm just worried that it'll happen regardless this year. And if it's between being young/upcoming/mediocre or old/bad, I'd much rather the former because there's light at the end of the tunnel. It's easier to spend around young talent than it is to add to expensive players you can't drop (like Contreras and Uribe).

Then again, maybe Kenny's right about all three question mark starters and it'll all be moot. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

You have to look at the other side of rebuilding, too. If we stock up with young players/prospects, and THEY flop and never produce on the major league level, then we have to re-rebuild, but this time we don't have any proven commodities to trade to get anything good back into our system. I'd much prefer to restock then rebuild. And that's what I think moves like adding Swisher, Quentin, Ramirez, Danks do for you.

Another thing I think is important to keep in mind is that year in and year out, the team that looks the best on paper hardly ever wins it all. If you can put a team together to have a fighting chance, anything can happen. I think this '08 team has a fighting chance.

jabrch
02-16-2008, 11:13 PM
You may be right, the majority of Sox fans might agree to rebuilding.

No Lip...you are correct. They would not. Just look at WSI after ONE bad year. Imagine if we had 3 of them?

pearso66
02-17-2008, 01:43 AM
I have to say, if this team were to rebuild, and lose 90+ games a year for the next 2-3 years, they would be back to having 1-2,000 people in the stands. What if the prospects that we are trying to rebuild around falter? Then in 5 years the Sox are still a 90 loss team. Where would the fan base be then?

I would rather the team try to make a run now, than put all their eggs in the rebuilding basket and try to win 3 years from now, but those prospects don't pan out. At least now I believe they have a competitive team, and I can stand watching a competitive team. Numerous sub .500 teams in a row, would make it hard to watch. I couldn't imagine being a Royals or Rays fan, or a Pirates fan. Those teams are always rebuilding.

Munch, I notice you said you will still watch the games, but are you going to go to 27-81 games this year. (I don't really know what you went to last year or the previous year either, just making a statement.) Yes many fans will still watch the games, but on TV, not at the park. I had the 27 game pass last year, but didn't renew. For me, it took an hour and a half to get to the park. So for a 3 hour game, it was a minimum 6 hours out of my day, if I didn't show up early, or stay late at all. That is 2 more days of work. And with the way they played last year, it seemed worse than work. I love going to games, but if you don't feel the team can win, It just isn't as enjoyable, plus I don't have that kind of money to throw away at watching a losing team. And I can guarantee I'm not the only one.

munchman33
02-17-2008, 03:50 AM
I have to say, if this team were to rebuild, and lose 90+ games a year for the next 2-3 years, they would be back to having 1-2,000 people in the stands. What if the prospects that we are trying to rebuild around falter? Then in 5 years the Sox are still a 90 loss team. Where would the fan base be then?

I would rather the team try to make a run now, than put all their eggs in the rebuilding basket and try to win 3 years from now, but those prospects don't pan out. At least now I believe they have a competitive team, and I can stand watching a competitive team. Numerous sub .500 teams in a row, would make it hard to watch. I couldn't imagine being a Royals or Rays fan, or a Pirates fan. Those teams are always rebuilding.

Munch, I notice you said you will still watch the games, but are you going to go to 27-81 games this year. (I don't really know what you went to last year or the previous year either, just making a statement.) Yes many fans will still watch the games, but on TV, not at the park. I had the 27 game pass last year, but didn't renew. For me, it took an hour and a half to get to the park. So for a 3 hour game, it was a minimum 6 hours out of my day, if I didn't show up early, or stay late at all. That is 2 more days of work. And with the way they played last year, it seemed worse than work. I love going to games, but if you don't feel the team can win, It just isn't as enjoyable, plus I don't have that kind of money to throw away at watching a losing team. And I can guarantee I'm not the only one.

Yes, I'll probably end up going to 30-45 games. I go to more when attendance is down. I don't like lots of people. Just preference. Has nothing to do with on field play. I'm simply a baseball fan who happens to love the White Sox. But a baseball fan nonetheless.

If your problem is faltering prospects, you can spend your way out of that. If you problem is faltering expensive veterans who are untradeable, you cannot.

BadBobbyJenks
02-17-2008, 04:17 AM
It's Keith Law. For whatever reason, this guy takes whatever shots he can at the Sox.

Memo to Keith: they've spent one year in the last 20 under .500...they're 'struggling' to get back over .500? :dunno:


perhaps because he was working in toronto when the sirotka deal went down? Ive always thought he sounds a little bitter when talking about the sox.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-17-2008, 01:25 PM
"Rebuilding" is for suckers.

You know what "rebuilding", "reloading", and "stockpiling" usually means? 9 times out of 10 the ballclub will still lose... but you have to wait 3+ years to find out. Suckers times-three.

You want to focus on the future? Go watch minor leaguers. Leave the discussion about WINNING baseball for the rest of us.
:cool:

MisterB
02-17-2008, 01:34 PM
perhaps because he was working in toronto when the sirotka deal went down? Ive always thought he sounds a little bitter when talking about the sox.

The Sirotka/Wells deal was made by Gord Ash. Law was hired more than a year later by Ash's replacement, J.P. Riccardi.

As for Law, as near as I can gather he was a baseball fan/stat geek with an MBA who got involved with the guys at Baseball Prospectus and started writing regularly for them. He was hired by the Jays at the recommendation of Paul DePodesta to analyze stats, and held a few different titles in their front office until he resigned in '06 and got hired by ESPN. He isn't a trained journalist, nor was he involved in pro baseball at any level before Riccardi hired him.

sullythered
02-17-2008, 01:45 PM
"Rebuilding" is for suckers.

You know what "rebuilding", "reloading", and "stockpiling" usually means? 9 times out of 10 the ballclub will still lose... but you have to wait 3+ years to find out. Suckers times-three.

You want to focus on the future? Go watch minor leaguers. Leave the discussion about WINNING baseball for the rest of us.
:cool:

Yeah, I'm more about reloading. I like what we've done this year, regardless of what happens this year. We've gotten younger (with proven major leaguers, munch) and given ourselves more flexibility at the major league level. Yeah, we moved some prospects, but they could very well never do anything in the bigs. Blowing everything up at once and going all super young doesn't guarantee a damn thing.

Frontman
02-17-2008, 01:53 PM
Yeah, I'm more about reloading. I like what we've done this year, regardless of what happens this year. We've gotten younger (with proven major leaguers, munch) and given ourselves more flexibility at the major league level. Yeah, we moved some prospects, but they could very well never do anything in the bigs. Blowing everything up at once and going all super young doesn't guarantee a damn thing.

Other than you move that young talent in a few years to avoid having them gain NTC status. Probably just in time for them to come into their prime.

munchman33
02-17-2008, 01:57 PM
Yeah, I'm more about reloading. I like what we've done this year, regardless of what happens this year. We've gotten younger (with proven major leaguers, munch) and given ourselves more flexibility at the major league level. Yeah, we moved some prospects, but they could very well never do anything in the bigs. Blowing everything up at once and going all super young doesn't guarantee a damn thing.

But we haven't fully reloaded. It's like we're a six shooter, but Kenny's only got two bullets left. We're not gonna get very far without pistol-whipping the competition.

That might have been the worst analogy ever...

guillen4life13
02-17-2008, 05:35 PM
Um... to the people saying that Cleveland has only made the playoffs once since their rebuilding effort started in '02, guess what: Since then the Sox have made the playoffs once also. The Indians could end up having a season like the '06 Sox if they don't make the playoffs. They're in a position to sustain their success around a core that is signed for a long time and has already proven that it can succeed at this level. C.C. is probably due for a huge paycheck when his contract expires, but Cleveland will make a strong push at keeping him. The '90's showed that when the Indians are winning, the fans come out. I hate to say it, but the Indians are back. And that's the point.

I really like what Mark Shapiro has done with his club. Their core got old, so they got rid of those with value, stocked up their farm and did an incredible scouting job to build their team back into a legitimate contender. The Mariners have done the same thing in about the same timeframe.

As far as the Blue Jays are concerned, they have many reasons they haven't made the playoffs since they won the WS, the biggest being Boston and NY. If Boston and NY were in our division, with the way they spend, it is pretty hard to keep up. Add a crappy stadium (Skydome) and the fact that its baseball in Canada, which just isn't as marketable, and you have a bad recipe. Tampa Bay have had similar issues for the longest time, and they're a smaller market team that has been doomed from the start by being placed in the AL East. The only way they could start competing with NY and Boston is luck. We aren't in the Blue Jays or D-Rays. The reality is that our team can and SHOULD be the top spenders in the AL Central. But, like the Yanks and Boston, you have to develop that from within your system and then start a cycle of reloading to sustain the success. New York won its 90's World Series with largely home-grown prospects with other guys to fill the gaps. The Red Sox got good with guys like Nomar, Nixon, Vaughn, etc., and they brought in guys to take them to the next level (Pedro, etc,) and have been on a reloading cycle since then. The White Sox should have been able to do something like this in the mid-90's with the core of Alvarez, Fernandez, Thomas, Ventura, etc., but didn't. The strike didn't help.

I believe the jury is out on this coming season, but if the trade deadline rolls around and the Sox are 10+ games out, I really think that it would be wise for them to start a real rebuilding effort with Nick Swisher as the face of the franchise. Trade the vets with value for good prospects, get some good draft picks and go from there. I think that the Sox are in a reasonable position to achieve a nice rebuild in 2-3 years. The Sox farm sucks right now for two reasons, the biggest being the fact that Richar, Owens, Fields, Danks, Floyd and Quentin are all transitioning into major league players. The other reason it sucks is because it seems like White Sox scouting just hasn't been very good at that level. Of the players I just mentioned, only Fields and Owens are the only ones who developed through the Sox system. You look just about every other major league team and their prospect success rate, I think you'll find they're a lot higher.

Another reason I think a rebuild is possible is that Chicago is a big market. If you rebuild, you're going to lose a huge portion of fans during that rebuilding process, but once the team starts winning again, the seats DO get filled. Rebuilding is not an expensive process so that seat revenue isn't necessarily needed. Factor in the new developments in Bridgeport around the Cell that are being thrown around, and you could see the attendance helped out by the revamped atmosphere in and around the stadium. Our ball park has shed its former reputation and people (not just Sox fans) now actually see it as a nice place to enjoy a baseball game. The Sox marketing strategy would have to change during this time to sell the "Day at the [not so old] ballpark!" and they'll have to bring back promotions like Half Priced Mondays, etc to give fans a little more incentive, but I think its reasonable.

I also think that the Sox rebuilding would yield 4th place finishes in the division, which isn't far off of what people are predicting our current team might do. Granted, there's a difference between going 70-92 and taking 4th place and going 81-81 and taking 4th place. In the AL Central this coming year, I think it's plausible for either of those W-L records to be 4th place, with the Royals finishing around 68-94 and the Twins finishing around 83-79.

But, I'll wait to make a complete judgement until July.

Then again, what the hell do I... wait, is this phrase copyrighted? :redneck

pearso66
02-17-2008, 05:37 PM
Yes, I'll probably end up going to 30-45 games. I go to more when attendance is down. I don't like lots of people. Just preference. Has nothing to do with on field play. I'm simply a baseball fan who happens to love the White Sox. But a baseball fan nonetheless.

If your problem is faltering prospects, you can spend your way out of that. If you problem is faltering expensive veterans who are untradeable, you cannot.

The problem with spending to get out under faltering prospects, is we have seen the Sox not spend before when there wasn't any attendance. So you are saying we should wait 3 years, for when the attendance it is at its lowest since probably right after the strike, and then if it doesn't work out, you are expecting the White Sox to spend money? I would rather take my chances the way it's going now. I would say the Sox are 1-2 SP's away from being a contender. Those 2 could be in the rotation right now, they just aren't proven. Floyd was once a top prospect, and he's failed so far in his career. Danks was a top prospect also. If either of those 2 fail, they have Broadway, another prospect, waiting in the wings. If you are worried they will fail, how will you feel 3 years down the road when all they have is prospects who may or may not be top prospects.

The Sox really only have 2 trading chips if you ask me. Jenks, whom they wouldn't trade, and Buehrle who as of right now they can't trade. I don't think Konerko has much value right now, and Dye is older as is Thome. And I'm sure you don't want to trade Fields who is yet another prospect.

guillen4life13
02-17-2008, 05:39 PM
The problem with spending to get out under faltering prospects, is we have seen the Sox not spend before when there wasn't any attendance. So you are saying we should wait 3 years, for when the attendance it is at its lowest since probably right after the strike, and then if it doesn't work out, you are expecting the White Sox to spend money? I would rather take my chances the way it's going now. I would say the Sox are 1-2 SP's away from being a contender. Those 2 could be in the rotation right now, they just aren't proven. Floyd was once a top prospect, and he's failed so far in his career. Danks was a top prospect also. If either of those 2 fail, they have Broadway, another prospect, waiting in the wings. If you are worried they will fail, how will you feel 3 years down the road when all they have is prospects who may or may not be top prospects.

The Sox really only have 2 trading chips if you ask me. Jenks, whom they wouldn't trade, and Buehrle who as of right now they can't trade. I don't think Konerko has much value right now, and Dye is older as is Thome. And I'm sure you don't want to trade Fields who is yet another prospect.

Why? He's not that old, has a very nice contract that has some time left, and he's a pretty damn good player.

pearso66
02-17-2008, 05:42 PM
Why? He's not that old, has a very nice contract that has some time left, and he's a pretty damn good player.

He has value, I just don't think he has as much as some around here think he might. He is a power hitter and run producer who is coming off a bad year. Maybe I'm wrong, and if they could get something for him, it might not be a bad idea to trade him anyway even though we aren't rebuilding. Swisher could play first, and then you could either get a CF back for him, or put Owens in CF which might happen anyway. I do hope they keep him, and that he returns to normal, but this might be their last chance to trade him, since he gains his 10/5 rights this season.

spiffie
02-17-2008, 06:35 PM
"Rebuilding" is for suckers.

You know what "rebuilding", "reloading", and "stockpiling" usually means? 9 times out of 10 the ballclub will still lose... but you have to wait 3+ years to find out. Suckers times-three.

You want to focus on the future? Go watch minor leaguers. Leave the discussion about WINNING baseball for the rest of us.
:cool:
Banking on a rotation with Jose Contreras, John Danks, and Gavin Floyd hardly sounds like winning baseball.

If the Sox want to be a win now at all costs team that's fine. But act that way then. Package Fields and Broadway and anyone else worth a damn in the minors for someone to bolster the starting rotation. Eat whatever ****ty contracts you might have to eat in order to go out and get a leadoff hitter. But don't get stuck halfway in between, with a team full of questionable prospects (Richar, Floyd, Danks, Owens, Fields, Quentin) and then say "hell with rebuilding, every year is a World Series or Bust season."

Right now the Sox seem like a team caught in between those two worlds. Why weren't they in on Bedard or Haren? Sure it would have cost the entire farm and more, but if they get one of those two guys suddenly you have th best rotation in the AL Central. Hell, you're probably better off with an OF of Quentin, Owens and Dye and a rotation with Bedard or Haren than you are with Swisher in CF but looking to Floyd/Danks for 64 starts this year.

"Win now!" is fine. Hell, as a fan of the team I would likely enjoy this year more if they were in that mode of thinking. But right now they seem unlikely to win now or later with the team as it is. I don't care how they go about doing it, but pick one of the two and commit at all costs to that approach. Trying to walk the middle way seems like it will end badly no matter how it is looked at. The only difference between what the Sox are doing now and what suckers call "rebuilding" is all of our question mark coin-flip prospects are going to be on our 25-man opening day roster instead of playing in AA somewhere.

kjhanson
02-17-2008, 06:37 PM
They lost Santana, Garza and Silva, but Baker and Perkins should be able to make up some of those innings. Overall they'll be slightly worse than last year, but with a solid bullpen they'll hang in there and still be semi-respectable. They also get Liriano back.

Are you thinking way worse than 77-85?

You forgot about Torii Hunter. Even though I believe he's one of the most overrated players in baseball, it's still hard to replace 28/107, 18 SB, and a solid glove in CF, especially on a team not known for its offense. Mauer and Cuddyer will be better than last year, but its not enough to offset Hunter's loss. Delmon Young is a nice addition, but that outfield is a strikeout waiting to happen (C. Monroe, Young, Cuddyer).

And the infield? Adam Evrett, Mike Lamb and Nick Punto? Not one of those guys would start on the Royals, or even make our ballclub. They are brutal.

The rotation is a mess with or without Liriano, who won't even be available for all of Spring Training. If we went into the season with their rotation, there wouldn't be enough bandwidth on WSI to handle all the aggravated posts. Additionally, Pat Neshek is coming off elbow problems, Reyes has a biceps problem, Rincon was terrible, and none of the young bullpen arms made an impact last year. That is a REAL bad baseball team.

DocWolf
02-21-2008, 08:28 PM
Bottom line...if you're not involved in controversy, you're not DOING anything. KW makes mistakes, but he gets it right a lot too. As long as this club is competitive, they'll be fun to watch. Maybe a lot of 10-8 old style Scrigley games, but you never know, experts are often wrong.
:cool:

WhiteSox Brad
03-01-2008, 05:08 PM
Questions around Linebrink are valid...good performance in Petco Park/National League doesn't necessarily translate to USCF/American League.

We'll see.


I have a bad feeling about Linebrink. 5.00+ ERA at $4.0+ million/year = HUGE BUST. I hope I'm wrong, but that is what my gutt is telling me.

Tragg
03-01-2008, 05:19 PM
Um... to the people saying that Cleveland has only made the playoffs once since their rebuilding effort started in '02, guess what: Since then the Sox have made the playoffs once also. The Indians could end up having a season like the '06 Sox if they don't make the playoffs. They're in a position to sustain their success around a core that is signed for a long time and has already proven that it can succeed at this level. C.C. is probably due for a huge paycheck when his contract expires, but Cleveland will make a strong push at keeping him. The '90's showed that when the Indians are winning, the fans come out. I hate to say it, but the Indians are back. And that's the point.

That's one way to look at it. The other is that since 02, the Sox have had many more competitive teams than have the Indians. And the Sox have a world title...without rebuilding. They are set up to be good for a while - the Sox are going to be good for a while too. And it took Cleveland and long time to get there.

Toronto never did get there.
And both Cleveland and Toronto had WS contending teams that they both just dismantled like Arizona and Florida did. Cleveland and Toronto were selling out there houses prior to demolition. When they got rid of their players, their fans left too.
Let me put it this way...what do you think would happen to the Sox attendance with a Tribe-style rebuilding. And do you think the Sox have the infrastructure (scouts, minor league instructors, coaches) to support a major league club completely reliant on minor league development.

I think there's a middle ground between rebuilding and making yourself noncompetitive and taking a step back and reloading.

I think these contracts to middle relievers are dubious.... but it sure beats trading talent for middle relief level ability, as the Sox have done the last 2 years. If they can't pitch, they can sit. I don't see how it's any worse than the Cubs signing Howry - except that they didn't get pounded for it by Keith Law. (Dotel is Howryish)

TheVulture
03-01-2008, 06:42 PM
http://assets.espn.go.com/i/sn2.gif Keith Law: (1:56 PM ET ) Trying to improve the '08 club was the wrong strategy.


Genius!