PDA

View Full Version : Kenny On Minor League System


Lip Man 1
02-24-2008, 12:37 PM
Kenny had this comment:

"One thing I can't get my arms around ... It's hard for me to understand the expectations to win at the big league level and compete for a championship but also wanting to keep every young player who comes along."

Here's the link to the entire story at White Sox.com:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080223&content_id=2385706&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

Lip

munchman33
02-24-2008, 12:48 PM
It's really simple Kenny. Win, and we don't care. Lose, and we want to know there's a future.

dickallen15
02-24-2008, 12:52 PM
Kenny had this comment:

"One thing I can't get my arms around ... It's hard for me to understand the expectations to win at the big league level and compete for a championship but also wanting to keep every young player who comes along."

Here's the link to the entire story at White Sox.com:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080223&content_id=2385706&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

Lip
One championship one playoff appearance in 7 years as GM. He has all the answers. Still uses can't spend $1 if I only have $.50 line. Talks up his minor leaguers like they're headed to Cooperstown then trades them away and wonders why people question it. Doesn't he realize his comments are part of the problem. Talking up his minor leaguers isn't going to enhance their trade value. Other teams scout White Sox prospects heavily, if there is a trade in the works they don't ask Kenny his opinion of his minor leaguers.His team may have been able to make another playoff appearance or 2 if he had players in 2003 and 2006 who could step in and get people out. There are plenty of players the White Sox passed on in drafts who have been successful. So if you want to compete for a championship you either need unbelievable luck health-wise which the Sox had in 2005, or you better have a couple of young players in your system who can step in and perform when one of your regulars go down.

Chilli Palmer
02-24-2008, 01:17 PM
One championship one playoff appearance in 7 years as GM. He has all the answers. Still uses can't spend $1 if I only have $.50 line. Talks up his minor leaguers like they're headed to Cooperstown then trades them away and wonders why people question it. Doesn't he realize his comments are part of the problem. Talking up his minor leaguers isn't going to enhance their trade value. Other teams scout White Sox prospects heavily, if there is a trade in the works they don't ask Kenny his opinion of his minor leaguers.His team may have been able to make another playoff appearance or 2 if he had players in 2003 and 2006 who could step in and get people out. There are plenty of players the White Sox passed on in drafts who have been successful. So if you want to compete for a championship you either need unbelievable luck health-wise which the Sox had in 2005, or you better have a couple of young players in your system who can step in and perform when one of your regulars go down.

Dead on balls accurate. Great post.

nodiggity59
02-24-2008, 01:18 PM
One championship one playoff appearance in 7 years as GM. He has all the answers. Still uses can't spend $1 if I only have $.50 line. Talks up his minor leaguers like they're headed to Cooperstown then trades them away and wonders why people question it. Doesn't he realize his comments are part of the problem. Talking up his minor leaguers isn't going to enhance their trade value. Other teams scout White Sox prospects heavily, if there is a trade in the works they don't ask Kenny his opinion of his minor leaguers.His team may have been able to make another playoff appearance or 2 if he had players in 2003 and 2006 who could step in and get people out. There are plenty of players the White Sox passed on in drafts who have been successful. So if you want to compete for a championship you either need unbelievable luck health-wise which the Sox had in 2005, or you better have a couple of young players in your system who can step in and perform when one of your regulars go down.


I'm so relieved that you have all the answers, chief. Whew.

munchman33
02-24-2008, 01:31 PM
I'm so relieved that you have all the answers, chief. Whew.

Kenny?

Seriously, why can't anyone say anything remotely critical about Kenny on here without a smartass comment like this. This better than though attitude the Kenny defenders has is sickening. You don't agree with him, back your ****ing argument up.

oeo
02-24-2008, 01:43 PM
Kenny?

Seriously, why can't anyone say anything remotely critical about Kenny on here without a smartass comment like this. This better than though attitude the Kenny defenders has is sickening. You don't agree with him, back your ****ing argument up.

:roflmao:

How about dickallen15 backs his argument up?

Talking up your minor leaguers doesn't work? Ha! Then please tell me why only one guy Kenny has traded over these past 8 years (C. Young) has amounted to anything?

There are guys that we passed on in past drafts? The draft is a crapshoot. A lot of guys are passed on by a lot of teams. This isn't the ****ing NFL where it's star player in the 1st round or bust. dickallen15 wasn't right about a single thing in that post. I guess because it was long, and ripping Kenny is cool, that makes it a good post? :dunno:

munchman33
02-24-2008, 01:50 PM
One championship one playoff appearance in 7 years as GM. He has all the answers. Still uses can't spend $1 if I only have $.50 line. Talks up his minor leaguers like they're headed to Cooperstown then trades them away and wonders why people question it. Doesn't he realize his comments are part of the problem. Talking up his minor leaguers isn't going to enhance their trade value. Other teams scout White Sox prospects heavily, if there is a trade in the works they don't ask Kenny his opinion of his minor leaguers.His team may have been able to make another playoff appearance or 2 if he had players in 2003 and 2006 who could step in and get people out. There are plenty of players the White Sox passed on in drafts who have been successful. So if you want to compete for a championship you either need unbelievable luck health-wise which the Sox had in 2005, or you better have a couple of young players in your system who can step in and perform when one of your regulars go down.

:roflmao:

How about dickallen15 backs his argument up?

Talking up your minor leaguers doesn't work? Ha! Then please tell me why only one guy Kenny has traded over these past 8 years (C. Young) has amounted to anything?

There are guys that we passed on in past drafts? The draft is a crapshoot. A lot of guys are passed on by a lot of teams. This isn't the ****ing NFL where it's star player in the 1st round or bust. dickallen15 wasn't right about a single thing in that post. I guess because it was long, and ripping Kenny is cool, that makes it a good post? :dunno:

I color coated his post for you. Orange = true statement. Red = his opinion. Green = true, but for reasons not delved into with his post.

I happen to agree with both of his comments in red. The comments in orange are his backup.

dickallen15
02-24-2008, 01:57 PM
:roflmao:

How about dickallen15 backs his argument up?

Talking up your minor leaguers doesn't work? Ha! Then please tell me why only one guy Kenny has traded over these past 8 years (C. Young) has amounted to anything?

There are guys that we passed on in past drafts? The draft is a crapshoot. A lot of guys are passed on by a lot of teams. This isn't the ****ing NFL where it's star player in the 1st round or bust. dickallen15 wasn't right about a single thing in that post. I guess because it was long, and ripping Kenny is cool, that makes it a good post? :dunno:

Ask Kenny himself when he's trading for other organization's minor league talent if he asks White Sox scouts about these players, or if he goes by what the GM who is trading these "future all-stars" away opinion.

Why even have scouts looking at other teams minor leaguers if that is what he does. Of course, ignore the reports of White Sox scouts or other teams scouts in the minor league stands looking at players rumored to move, its all about the hype the GM makes about him.

You said everything in my post was wrong. You don't think if Kenny had a 5th starter they could have made the playoffs in 2003? You don't think if they had anyone who could come up and pitch out of the bullpen in 2006 they could have made the playoffs?

As for my comment on the draft picks. Their draft position has always been used as an excuse for the White Sox poor drafts. I'm just pointing out that there have been plenty of good players available when they select.

oeo
02-24-2008, 02:10 PM
I color coated his post for you. Orange = true statement. Red = his opinion. Green = true, but for reasons not delved into with his post.

I happen to agree with both of his comments in red. The comments in orange are his backup.

Aw, that was nice of you to do that. :rolleyes:

Other teams scout White Sox prospects heavily, if there is a trade in the works they don't ask Kenny his opinion of his minor leaguers.

Of course they don't ask, but what do you think gets them noticed in the first place? Other teams don't go out scouting our players 'heavily.' They don't have long books about every one of our guys. When a deal is coming about, they go and check some guys out, and who do you think the first ones are? The guys that are in the papers, the guys with their names out there...not Joe Blow.

So if you want to compete for a championship you either need unbelievable luck health-wise which the Sox had in 2005, or you better have a couple of young players in your system who can step in and perform when one of your regulars go down.

These are the only two ways to a championship? :rolling:

You can also trade those young players for other young talent that is more major league ready. Oh, and you can spend some money. Both of which Kenny has done this offseason.

This is all dickallen15 got right in his post:
One championship one playoff appearance in 7 years as GM.

Except no GM in baseball besides Theo Epstein can say they've won more than 1 championship in the last 7 years. And what do the playoffs matter if you don't take it all? No one remembers the team that was swept in the first round. You've failed just as much if you make the playoffs and get swept out than if you've won 60 games.

sullythered
02-24-2008, 02:10 PM
I color coated his post for you. Orange = true statement. Red = his opinion. Green = true, but for reasons not delved into with his post.

I happen to agree with both of his comments in red. The comments in orange are his backup.
Is that like powder-coating?

Name me the team that doesn't have a 150 million dollar payroll that doesn't need good luck when it comes to health? If Kenny keeps up his current rate of one title and one playoff every seven years, he'll be the best GM in Sox history, by far. And talking up your minor leaguers absolutely inflates their value. Ask the Yankees.

jabrch
02-24-2008, 02:14 PM
Except no GM in baseball besides Theo Epstein can say they've won more than 1 championship in the last 7 years.


Including those who have outspent him by anything from 50% to 100% and those who are geniuses and who have revolutionized the game. Including younger ones, older ones, dumber ones and smarter ones.

Kenny has assembled a franchise that has been competitive in 6 of the last 7 years. We have some dopey fans that don't get it - but that's pretty good. You can easily argue that there aren't many franchises who have been more successful than the Sox in the past 7 years. And if you choose to wait and see how this team shakes out, you may just find a pretty competitive ballclub.

WhiteSox5187
02-24-2008, 02:18 PM
Well, the Sox haven't had a guy produce in the majors coming out of our system since about Rowand in 2002, whether or not we trade the guys is almost irrelevant, the fact we can't produce home grown talent is troublesome. And Kenny has had eight years to fix that, and he hasn't...and a one playoff appearence in seven years is NOT a good ratio, especially when you look at how weak the AL Central was when he first took over. The fact that that would make him the best GM in Sox history shows the history of mediocrity that we have here on the southside but it also needs to be remembered that for years and years only two teams would make the playoffs. If the we had the system that Kenny has now, we would have made the playoffs almost every year from what? '55-67? The '77 team would have made the playoffs if we had the current playoff system as would the '81 and '72 team. No, one playoff appearence every seven years is NOT going to get it done. Now if the Sox make the playoffs this year, whole new ball game...if the Sox lose ninety again, Kenny's job should be in jeopardy.

Corlose 15
02-24-2008, 02:24 PM
You said everything in my post was wrong. You don't think if Kenny had a 5th starter they could have made the playoffs in 2003? You don't think if they had anyone who could come up and pitch out of the bullpen in 2006 they could have made the playoffs?




So, you fully expected Politte to completely fall off the face of the earth after 2005? Or Cotts to be unable to get anybody out? I think a regression after the phenomenal years they had in '05 was expected but not to the point they did.

KW went out and got MacDougal, which worked in '06, and Riske, which didn't really but had had previous success has has succeeded since then. Exactly how much depth is he supposed to have?

Or was he supposed to know that Buehrle would have the worst 2nd half of his career or that Contreras would get hurt after a great 1st half? Or that Garcia wouldn't be able to throw harder than 90mph for most of the year? Those three things to me would seem to have a greater bearing on 2006 than the bullpen.

oeo
02-24-2008, 02:32 PM
Ask Kenny himself when he's trading for other organization's minor league talent if he asks White Sox scouts about these players, or if he goes by what the GM who is trading these "future all-stars" away opinion.

Why even have scouts looking at other teams minor leaguers if that is what he does. Of course, ignore the reports of White Sox scouts or other teams scouts in the minor league stands looking at players rumored to move, its all about the hype the GM makes about him.

Read my post below yours. No team has enough time or money to 'heavily' scout every team's minor league system. The guys out there with a name will get noticed. Of course they're going to take their own opinion of talent, but you think they're going to go look at the guy they've never heard of before the guy who is hyped?

You said everything in my post was wrong. You don't think if Kenny had a 5th starter they could have made the playoffs in 2003? You don't think if they had anyone who could come up and pitch out of the bullpen in 2006 they could have made the playoffs?No and no. 2003 we had an even bigger problem in Jerry Manuel. 2006, it was the offense that completely fell apart down the stretch, which was why we didn't make the postseason.

As for my comment on the draft picks. Their draft position has always been used as an excuse for the White Sox poor drafts. I'm just pointing out that there have been plenty of good players available when they select.And I'm pointing out that it's a crapshoot. That's very good for you that you can go back and look at Round 1 of the 2003 draft and say so-and-so should have been drafted here. I can do that too. :dunno:

champagne030
02-24-2008, 02:39 PM
Kenny?

Seriously, why can't anyone say anything remotely critical about Kenny on here without a smartass comment like this. This better than though attitude the Kenny defenders has is sickening. You don't agree with him, back your ****ing argument up.

Kenny was the GM and mastermind behind the 2005 World Series Champion White Sox. Arguement over.....:rolleyes:

kaufsox
02-24-2008, 02:44 PM
Except no GM in baseball besides Theo Epstein can say they've won more than 1 championship in the last 7 years. And what do the playoffs matter if you don't take it all? No one remembers the team that was swept in the first round. You've failed just as much if you make the playoffs and get swept out than if you've won 60 games.
[/COLOR]

That is a bit of an exaggeration, especially around these parts. Many people cite 1983 as their favorite team, along with other teams (1977) that didn't make the playoffs. Finally, if a team makes the playoffs they obviously were more successful than a 60 win team. I'm happy if the Sox are competitive into September, a summer well spent. For the most part, Kenny accomplishes this. The great thing about baseball is the small percentage of teams that make the post season.

munchman33
02-24-2008, 03:00 PM
Kenny was the GM and mastermind behind the 2005 World Series Champion White Sox. Arguement over.....:rolleyes:

Hahaha...yeah. Free pass for life. It's a good thing no one around here seems to want another one.

WhiteSox5187
02-24-2008, 03:06 PM
Read my post below yours. No team has enough time or money to 'heavily' scout every team's minor league system. The guys out there with a name will get noticed. Of course they're going to take their own opinion of talent, but you think they're going to go look at the guy they've never heard of before the guy who is hyped?

No and no. 2003 we had an even bigger problem in Jerry Manuel. 2006, it was the offense that completely fell apart down the stretch, which was why we didn't make the postseason.

And I'm pointing out that it's a crapshoot. That's very good for you that you can go back and look at Round 1 of the 2003 draft and say so-and-so should have been drafted here. I can do that too. :dunno:
The black hole we had in the fifth spot in the rotation in '03 was probably a bigger reason we didn't make the playoffs than Jerry Manuel. We got to the playoffs in 2000 with him when we had a productive offense and five descent pitchers, we had a productive offense in '03 but no one could get a win on that fifth day...as for '06 the offense fell apart in September, but the fact that the pitching was just so weak was what really killed us. And that isn't any fault of KW. I do not blame KW one iota for our failure to win in '06, we just had a bunch of guys with tired arms.

However, I do blame Kenny for the abysmal 2007 team, ESPECIALLY the bullpen which was his pet project, the God awful 2002 team where he said he thought we'd have enough offense to mask our defensive and pitching woes, the '03-'04 blackhole in the fifth spot of the rotation and the awful state of our farm system right now.

Kenny isn't a bad GM, but I don't think he's a great one either, I don't think he is anywhere near as good as former Sox employee and current Detroit GM David Dombrowski or former Cardinals GM Walt Jocketty (who I'd love to see as GM of the Sox in '09 if KW bottoms out in '08) but I think he's better than guys like Billy Beane or Hendry. He's strictly a middle of the pact sort of guy.

voodoochile
02-24-2008, 03:29 PM
Hahaha...yeah. Free pass for life. It's a good thing no one around here seems to want another one.

:darkcloud:


:whoflungpoo:

Noneck
02-24-2008, 03:32 PM
He's strictly a middle of the pact sort of guy.

That's is true and he has given us a middle of the pack team over his tenure.

dickallen15
02-24-2008, 03:44 PM
Read my post below yours. No team has enough time or money to 'heavily' scout every team's minor league system. The guys out there with a name will get noticed. Of course they're going to take their own opinion of talent, but you think they're going to go look at the guy they've never heard of before the guy who is hyped?

No and no. 2003 we had an even bigger problem in Jerry Manuel. 2006, it was the offense that completely fell apart down the stretch, which was why we didn't make the postseason.

And I'm pointing out that it's a crapshoot. That's very good for you that you can go back and look at Round 1 of the 2003 draft and say so-and-so should have been drafted here. I can do that too. :dunno:

On Sept. 15, 2003 the White Sox were in first place. Then got crushed by Minnesota. If they had a fifth starter, one who could have held teams to 6 runs or less the majority of the season, there's a decent chance they win. They won a division with Jerry Manuel as the manager, perhaps you forgot that.
I never have said so and so was available the Sox should have drafted him. All I said was there were good players available when the Sox drafted, the excuse of having a good record and poor draft position is garbage. How do the Yankees and Red Sox get good minor leaguers?

Any player traded by the White Sox will be heavily scouted by the other team, they aren't going to take Kenny's word for it. If that was the case why doesn't Kenny tell someone Lance Broadway is Hall of Fame bound and the Sox can pick up a huge piece. How is it when Minnesota was trading Santana they had reports on all the minor leaguers being offered to them, or asked for players the organizations didn't want to give up? How do they know these players even exist? If you don't think there are reports on all White Sox minor leaguers, obviously some more thorough than others, with every team, you are even more blinded by KW kool-aid than I thought. In fact I believe there is an outside scouting service available to every team. Kenny also had a scouting report on Alexei Ramirez. You really need to get it into your head, he and every other GM out there will have something on every player they acquire.

Daver
02-24-2008, 03:50 PM
How do the Yankees and Red Sox get good minor leaguers?

They buy it by paying outrageous signing bonuses.

dickallen15
02-24-2008, 03:54 PM
They buy it by paying outrageous signing bonuses.
To a point, however Phillip Hughes, Joba Chamberlain, and Jacob Ellsbury had a combined signing bonus less than Joe Borchard's.

munchman33
02-24-2008, 03:58 PM
They buy it by paying outrageous signing bonuses.

Not to mention legions of the best scouts money can buy.

Lip Man 1
02-24-2008, 08:39 PM
OEO said this:

And what do the playoffs matter if you don't take it all? No one remembers the team that was swept in the first round. You've failed just as much if you make the playoffs and get swept out than if you've won 60 games.

---

I disagree with this for one important reason...playoff teams usually have great seasons, draw very well attendance wise and put more money in the bank, which can be used to improve the club.

Winning 90+ games, making the post season (even if you get swept) still amounts to a hell of a season in my book.

Lip

rdivaldi
02-25-2008, 02:31 AM
That's is true and he has given us a middle of the pack team over his tenure.

Middle of the pack? Over his tenure the White Sox have been legitimate contenders for the division crown every year except 2002 and 2007. This year will be the first year that we've drafted before pick #15 as well.

Well, the Sox haven't had a guy produce in the majors coming out of our system since about Rowand in 2002,

We don't win the World Series without B-Mac in 2005. Fields, Logan, Wassermann and Owens all produced last year.

It's amazing how last year clouds so many people's memories or just brings out the doom sayers. You can be negative, but at least back it up with some fact/truth. We all know that the system is pretty bare and one of the worst in the majors. ST games can't start soon enough.

johnr1note
02-25-2008, 08:02 AM
Hahaha...yeah. Free pass for life. It's a good thing no one around here seems to want another one.

Worked for Ditka, didn't it?

Noneck
02-25-2008, 09:29 AM
Middle of the pack?





Ok, in the upper half.

Above: Boston, LA, Minnesota, NY, Oakland
Below:Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, KC, Tampa, Texas, Toronto
Similar: Seattle

voodoochile
02-25-2008, 10:02 AM
Ok, in the upper half.

Above: Boston, LA, Minnesota, NY, Oakland
Below:Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, KC, Tampa, Texas, Toronto
Similar: Seattle

Why are the Sox below Oakland and Minnesota over KW's tenure? Is his overall record that much worse than them? Doesn't his building a team that won a WS something they failed to do outweigh that difference?

I have to believe the scale is weighted and that not all things are equal.

WS Title - 100

Pennant - 90

Division Crown - 70 (It's become easier to make the playoffs so this isn't what it once was)

WC - 65

Winning Record - 50

Everything else - 0

Edit: That scale might put Minnesota ahead of the Sox when all is said and done. Perhaps I should make WS Title 200 points :tongue:

Noneck
02-25-2008, 11:25 AM
Why are the Sox below Oakland and Minnesota over KW's tenure? Is his overall record that much worse than them? Doesn't his building a team that won a WS something they failed to do outweigh that difference?

I have to believe the scale is weighted and that not all things are equal.

WS Title - 100

Pennant - 90

Division Crown - 70 (It's become easier to make the playoffs so this isn't what it once was)

WC - 65

Winning Record - 50

Everything else - 0

Edit: That scale might put Minnesota ahead of the Sox when all is said and done. Perhaps I should make WS Title 200 points :tongue:

I think WS Titles are most important. At some point earlier in the year I argued for the Marlins over the Blosox. But most people here like the being competitive aspect so that what I based this on.

kittle42
02-25-2008, 11:33 AM
I'm so relieved that you have all the answers, chief. Whew.

Why is any critical discussion of Kenny Williams here met with such venom by ceratin folk? Can't we actually have a discussion without labelinga nd attacking each other? If dickallen15's post were instead, "Well, put, Kenny. I agree with everything you said," would you then have written that you are glad he "had the answers" without the implied sarcasm just because you agreed with him.

Man.

balke
02-25-2008, 11:35 AM
It doesn't matter what any of you think of his style as far as I'm concerned. 3 years ago when I told people I was a White Sox fan, they referred to it as a curse passed down from generation to generation. Expressing any hope for the White Sox was taunted.

Every G.M. who didn't produce a title before KW was a failure. If the guy who got this team here believes in what he's doing, I do too.

Quick points:

No matter how good or bad your minor system is, you always talk it up. How are you supposed to trade players for anything of value if you don't believe in the talent they possess?

Just because you believe in that talent, doesn't mean that talent has to stay in Chicago. You may believe in a player as much as you'd like, but if he can't play SS and that's what you need, he may be traded.

I think KW's going to shut up a lot of the Munchman's this season with the team he put together.

spiffie
02-25-2008, 11:36 AM
Why are the Sox below Oakland and Minnesota over KW's tenure? Is his overall record that much worse than them? Doesn't his building a team that won a WS something they failed to do outweigh that difference?

I have to believe the scale is weighted and that not all things are equal.

WS Title - 100

Pennant - 90

Division Crown - 70 (It's become easier to make the playoffs so this isn't what it once was)

WC - 65

Winning Record - 50

Everything else - 0

Edit: That scale might put Minnesota ahead of the Sox when all is said and done. Perhaps I should make WS Title 200 points :tongue:
I think you need to seperate out emotional fulfillment from evaluation. Obviously in that regard a playoff berth is 50 points and a World Series is a million billion points.

But if you tell me that as a fan my team will get 3 shots over the next 5 years to try and win the World Series, or 1 shot with slightly better odds, I'll take the former. And when you look back at the Boston series of 2005 I think there's validity behind that. Yes, we swept Boston. And yes, all that matters is the result. But would the 2005 Sox be any less good of a team if Tony Graffanino turns a DP in Game 2, and the home plate ump says Damon checked in Game 3, leading to the Sox possibly losing that series? I know because two of our least favorite teams (Twins, A's) have been repeated playoff losers that the idea of the playoffs being at least somewhat luck-driven has become dirty words around here, but when you think that it was one incredibly poor error and one razor-thin strike call that possibly keeps the Sox from being down 2-1 in the ALDS it seems at least like the margin between playoff teams is usually pretty slim. And because of that it strikes me as nearly impossible to say "oh they put together a playoff team but they can't win it all with that team." Especially when you look at recent winners and see each one has done it with a different approach.

So while yes, I would say the World Series win does need to be weighted more highly than a mere playoff appearance, I'm not sure the disparity should be too great. However, I would say the gap between getting into the playoffs and not getting in should be quite large. If the World Series is the one thing that really matters, then playoff berths have to be treated like gold, since I don't care if you win 90 games in the regular season, if you don't make the playoffs then it doesn't matter. That's why I get confused when people belittle the Twins for not making it to the World Series, but in the next breath call 2006 a success despite finishing third.

TomBradley72
02-25-2008, 11:40 AM
I put KW as an "above average" GM..but not among the elite. To me, that is reserved for GMs who deliver both consistent post season appearances (he's delivered 1/7) as well as high quality/consistent player development (this has been sporadic over his 12+ years of leadership of the WSox farm system in various roles).

Based on last year....we had the 6th highest payroll in MLB and yielded one of the worst seasons in our recent history, and our farm system has very few top prospects who are projected to make an impact in 2008-2009. So results were poor at both the MLB and minor league level. He owns that.

The 2008 season is a huge one for KW to demonstrate that he has the judgement to be considered a top GM. I'm optimistic. But I'm always optimistic in spring training. :cool:

My pick for best GM while's I've been a WSox fan...it's Roland Hemond. Give him $100M+ in payroll...and he would have us consistently in the post season. Hell, JR fired him after an 85 win season in 1985.

kittle42
02-25-2008, 11:41 AM
Hahaha...yeah. Free pass for life. It's a good thing no one around here seems to want another one.

You know, munch, I don't agree with you a whole lot, but you're right here. It's what I brought up in another thread a long time ago - the "Chicago fandom" problem. The City (aside from a lengthy Bulls run) has had jack squat in terms of sports success for a long time, so any team that wins (see 1985 Bears) is praised forever and the folks involved (see Messiah Mike Ditka) can do no wrong. Ever. Sadly, the same thing is happening with the 2005 White Sox. Hey, that October was one of the best times of my life, and I would cheer each and every one of those guys at all the inevitable reunions to come in the future, but you know what? Just because they hadn't won in almost 90 years doesn't mean we should all have to wait around another 90 for another championship, and it doesn't mean that the organization or anyone in it should get a free pass.

If all it takes for some of you to feel OK after a Sox defeat is for you to pop in your 2005 WS DVD, keep doing that. I'll keep worrying about this team getting back to the top in the present.

voodoochile
02-25-2008, 11:44 AM
I think WS Titles are most important. At some point earlier in the year I argued for the Marlins over the Blosox. But most people here like the being competitive aspect so that what I based this on.

Well except for last year, the Sox have been very competitive for the most part, regularly participating in the playoff chase in August and September.

I actually thought about including a category for playoff chase, but felt it was best to simply make it winning record which most of the time means you stood a chance in August at least.

voodoochile
02-25-2008, 12:00 PM
You know, munch, I don't agree with you a whole lot, but you're right here. It's what I brought up in another thread a long time ago - the "Chicago fandom" problem. The City (aside from a lengthy Bulls run) has had jack squat in terms of sports success for a long time, so any team that wins (see 1985 Bears) is praised forever and the folks involved (see Messiah Mike Ditka) can do no wrong. Ever. Sadly, the same thing is happening with the 2005 White Sox. Hey, that October was one of the best times of my life, and I would cheer each and every one of those guys at all the inevitable reunions to come in the future, but you know what? Just because they hadn't won in almost 90 years doesn't mean we should all have to wait around another 90 for another championship, and it doesn't mean that the organization or anyone in it should get a free pass.

If all it takes for some of you to feel OK after a Sox defeat is for you to pop in your 2005 WS DVD, keep doing that. I'll keep worrying about this team getting back to the top in the present.

I'm sorry, but that's a ****ing load of ****. Everyone here wants another championship for the Sox (well, maybe not MaGaga and Oblong). The fact is people simply disagree on the best way of going about winning one and whether KW is doing the proper things to make it happen.

People like Munch who are ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater because of one crappy season where everyone performed below their averages and injuries played a huge role simply love to shout down everyone who disagrees with them that the Sox are doomed and that KW didn't manage to fill most of the holes on last year's team this off-season.

That comment in particular was so over the top ridiculous that it didn't deserve a reply except for the pictures I posted earlier in this thread. Go ahead, label me a Pollyanna and be done with it then claim you too have some innate insight into how the next 5 years are going to be horrible and that Sox fans who don't see it are living in the past.

It was a load of crap when Munch posted it and your agreeing with it doesn't make it smell any better...

kittle42
02-25-2008, 12:05 PM
It was a load of crap when Munch posted it and your agreeing with it doesn't make it smell any better...

Ok, ok. Let me be clear...there is not one Sox fan on this board who doesn't want to win a championship every season. If that person exists, he or she is not a Sox fan.

I'm just saying that I'm tired of the free pass argument. Well, maybe it's more like the "at least we still have 2005" argument. I just don't want to be saying/hearing the same thing 10, 20 years from now. I guess I'm just already frustrated, you know?

munchman33
02-25-2008, 12:05 PM
I'm sorry, but that's a ****ing load of ****. Everyone here wants another championship for the Sox (well, maybe not MaGaga and Oblong). The fact is people simply disagree on the best way of going about winning one and whether KW is doing the proper things to make it happen.

People like Munch who are ready to throw out the baby with the bathwater because of one crappy season where everyone performed below their averages and injuries played a huge role simply love to shout down everyone who disagrees with them that the Sox are doomed and that KW didn't manage to fill most of the holes on last year's team this off-season.

That comment in particular was so over the top ridiculous that it didn't deserve a reply except for the pictures I posted earlier in this thread. Go ahead, label me a Pollyanna and be done with it then claim you too have some innate insight into how the next 5 years are going to be horrible and that Sox fans who don't see it are living in the past.

It was a load of crap when Munch posted it and your agreeing with it doesn't make it smell any better...

:happybday

voodoochile
02-25-2008, 12:09 PM
Ok, ok. Let me be clear...there is not one Sox fan on this board who doesn't want to win a championship every season. If that person exists, he or she is not a Sox fan.

I'm just saying that I'm tired of the free pass argument. Well, maybe it's more like the "at least we still have 2005" argument. I just don't want to be saying/hearing the same thing 10, 20 years from now. I guess I'm just already frustrated, you know?

It's been 2 freaking years and the Sox have had one 90 win team since then. Yes, they also had a 90 loss team when everything that could have gone wrong did. Let's give it some time to play out and see what happens.

Much is just pissed because the Sox traded the greatest pitcher in the history of the world a few months ago...:rolleyes:

munchman33
02-25-2008, 12:15 PM
It's been 2 freaking years and the Sox have had one 90 win team since then. Yes, they also had a 90 loss team when everything that could have gone wrong did. Let's give it some time to play out and see what happens.

Much is just pissed because the Sox traded the greatest pitcher in the history of the world a few months ago...:rolleyes:

A lot more could have gone wrong last year. We had three good pitchers in our rotation all year. And Bobby was probably close to the best closer in baseball.

I don't think we had every go wrong. I think we just saw Dye's age and injury history catch up to him. We saw a lot of bad bullpen moves lead to a lot of problems. We saw a lineup lacking balance, plate discipline, and speed. And we saw a rotation that features a 40+ guy and two kids that we're still not even close to sure will pan out.

But yeah, it all must be that we were incredibly unlucky.

rdivaldi
02-25-2008, 12:22 PM
I think we just saw Dye's age and injury history catch up to him.

Dye was 33 last year, I don't think we saw anything "catch up" to him. Remember that many of his injuries have been incredibly fluky.

kittle42
02-25-2008, 12:24 PM
Much is just pissed because the Sox traded the greatest pitcher in the history of the world a few months ago...:rolleyes:

I also want to make clear that I don't give two ****s about De los Santos or Gio Gonzalez or Scott Ruffcorn, for that matter.

voodoochile
02-25-2008, 12:25 PM
A lot more could have gone wrong last year. We had three good pitchers in our rotation all year. And Bobby was probably close to the best closer in baseball.

I don't think we had every go wrong. I think we just saw Dye's age and injury history catch up to him. We saw a lot of bad bullpen moves lead to a lot of problems. We saw a lineup lacking balance, plate discipline, and speed. And we saw a rotation that features a 40+ guy and two kids that we're still not even close to sure will pan out.

But yeah, it all must be that we were incredibly unlucky.

Yeah, because players age is always a factor at 33, Contreras is clearly in his mid 40's and everyone knew that both Pods and Erstad would fall apart at the same time along with Crede and thome.

Your use of over the top hyperbole doesn't make your opinion more believable.

Oh and just for ****s and giggles, do you mean the Jermaine Dye who posted a .947 OPS in the second half of the season? Just curious...

:rolleyes:

Domeshot17
02-25-2008, 12:29 PM
I think its funny seeing both sides of the spectrum. There are the Kenny sucks crowd that think everything he does is bs. Then there is the Kenny can do no wrong crowd who defend his every move.

I put myself in the middle. He is a gambler. Thats his style. Some years he will pay off big like 2005, and other years he will blow up like 07. I think he is too stubborn in his ways. While I don't like Boras, it is Kenny's job to deal with him, and when he refuses, and cuts us out of prospects and free agents he represents, it in no way helps the team. I think Kenny is afraid of a high risk high reward prospect after Borchard. I would have to look up the number, but I believe I read that over the last few years, we are one of the top 7 cheapest teams in the draft. We just refuse to spend in the top few rounds. I also think he failed to address parts of the team last year to prove he was right. I know a lot of us did not like going into the year with the bullpen we had. This year he went out and spent on relief pitching. I like that. Dotel and Linebrink have each been elite relievers during their career. I feel safer going into the season with them over Andrew Sisco.

I think Kenny realizes the problem and thats why he is revamping the scouting department. I think he has to realize part of the blame is to be laid on the way we DEVELOP players. Our minor league coaches and the overall philosophy has to have some impact on why guys like Anderson Sweeney Borchard et. all never amounted to much and guys like Crede took years to live up to any of their potential in the bigs.

When we got De Los Santos, maybe this was to change, but we also don't seem to spend a lot in overseas scouting. I think in the future we need to attack foriegn regions harder.

I don't have a problem with trading guys like Gio and Sweeney for Swisher. A bird in hand is better then 2 in the bush. Sweeneys stock has fallen year after year, and there is a lot of mixed opinions on Gio. Some love him, and some seem to think he will struggle mightily in the majors because of how heavy he relys on his breaking stuff. That may work against a season of double a hitters who will be finding new careers soon, but in the pros that does not fly.


EDIT: Last year was like the perfect storm of everything. Kenny could not plan on Ozuna going down, and he was the backup plan to Pods. That said, he went an entire season without finding us an upgrade over Andy Gonzalez and Bukvich. It felt like he packed it in early but we were jammed up all year. Dye played what, 3 months with a destroyed Quad because everyone else was hurt worse.

munchman33
02-25-2008, 12:35 PM
Yeah, because players age is always a factor at 33, Contreras is clearly in his mid 40's and everyone knew that both Pods and Erstad would fall apart at the same time along with Crede and thome.

Your use of over the top hyperbole doesn't make your opinion more believable.

Oh and just for ****s and giggles, do you mean the Jermaine Dye who posted a .947 OPS in the second half of the season? Just curious...

:rolleyes:

Yes I absolutely mean that same Jermaine Dye. The same guy that's probably going to suffer this year do to injury and recovery as well. The same guy who doesn't run the bases all that well anymore and the same guy who for two years straight has the worst statistical range of any right fielder in baseball. There are more sides to the game than hitting. And Jermaine doesn't even do that all the time. He had one great year at the plate. That's it. Having another like that should be a pipe dream, not an expectation. We'll be lucky if he plays enough and plays healthy enough to put up numbers like he did in 2005.

Pods and Erstad were huge injury questions. Yes, you should have known that was a possibility. And Thome's getting old. So that isn't a surprise.

Crede wasn't a surprise either. He's battled the back problems for years.

I don't see how you can claim guys who are injury risks going on the D.L. as "unlucky." That's normal luck, because that is the expectation.

TomBradley72
02-25-2008, 12:36 PM
The results in 2007 were more driven by bad decisions than by bad luck.

It wasn't bad luck that had our bullpen completely SUCK. Aardsma, Sisco, MacDougal were all acquired for mediocre players. Their low market value was an indicator of their talent level. They sucked because they suck...not due to injury, bad luck, etc.

2/3's or our OF was built around Podsednik (consistently injured since the All Star break of 2005) and Erstad (several years removed from his last productive season). Our OF didn't suck because of bad luck or injuries...we had bad OFs.

Bad OF, bad bullpen, lack of team speed...bad (but expensive) team without a healthy farm system to "replenish" the talent at the major league level.

spiffie
02-25-2008, 12:40 PM
Yeah, because players age is always a factor at 33, Contreras is clearly in his mid 40's and everyone knew that both Pods and Erstad would fall apart at the same time along with Crede and thome.

Your use of over the top hyperbole doesn't make your opinion more believable.

Oh and just for ****s and giggles, do you mean the Jermaine Dye who posted a .947 OPS in the second half of the season? Just curious...

:rolleyes:
Pods and Erstad are not likely the best people to use to make your case that the injuries in 2007 were unforeseen. Pods was coming off two injury-riddled years, and Erstad hasn't been healthy since sometime around the second Lord of the Rings movie.

Crede we knew had back trouble and were worried about if it would catch up to him. And Thome is great and all, but he's in his mid-late 30's with known injury issues. And Jose wasn't the same pitcher the second half of 2006 after he got injured, and is also an aging player.

Yes, it sucked that all of the coins turned up the wrong way last year, but many of the coins were weighted pretty heavily to the negative to begin with. Outside of Dye, there's not one of those players who didn't have an elevated risk of injury/underperformance going into 2007, and even JD was probably a bit more at risk than the average OF.

TomBradley72
02-25-2008, 12:42 PM
We'll be lucky if he plays enough and plays healthy enough to put up numbers like he did in 2005.

Pods and Erstad were huge injury questions. Yes, you should have known that was a possibility. And Thome's getting old. So that isn't a surprise.

Crede wasn't a surprise either. He's battled the back problems for years.

I don't see how you can claim guys who are injury risks going on the D.L. as "unlucky." That's normal luck, because that is the expectation.

This is an accurate post.

Injuries that were "bad luck": Ozuna, Toby Hall

Injuries to Veteran and/or Aging Players w/a History of Health Problems: Dye, Erstad, Podsednik, Thome, Crede...are not bad luck..but part of the overall "law of averages" when you build a team around those type of players.

rdivaldi
02-25-2008, 12:43 PM
Pods and Erstad are not likely the best people to use to make your case that the injuries in 2007 were unforeseen.

I think we can all agree with that, Pods and Erstad are the definitions of "injury prone". Crede has been a sore point with me in terms of last year. I can't for the life of me figure out why he didn't look into surgery during the 2006 off season, except for the most insidious of reasons.

voodoochile
02-25-2008, 12:44 PM
Pods and Erstad are not likely the best people to use to make your case that the injuries in 2007 were unforeseen. Pods was coming off two injury-riddled years, and Erstad hasn't been healthy since sometime around the second Lord of the Rings movie.

Crede we knew had back trouble and were worried about if it would catch up to him. And Thome is great and all, but he's in his mid-late 30's with known injury issues. And Jose wasn't the same pitcher the second half of 2006 after he got injured, and is also an aging player.

Yes, it sucked that all of the coins turned up the wrong way last year, but many of the coins were weighted pretty heavily to the negative to begin with. Outside of Dye, there's not one of those players who didn't have an elevated risk of injury/underperformance going into 2007.

I have no problem with that assessment, my point was that even with elevated injury risk, it took a ton of bad luck for all of those injuries to happen at the same time.

I notice Munch is now pounding out the "Dye is sure to be injured this season" to support his bull**** assessments.

I don't mind rational discussion about whether this team will or won't succeed, but Munch isn't even close to being believable.

munchman33
02-25-2008, 12:48 PM
I have no problem with that assessment, my point was that even with elevated injury risk, it took a ton of bad luck for all of those injuries to happen at the same time.

I notice Munch is now pounding out the "Dye is sure to be injured this season" to support his bull**** assessments.

I don't mind rational discussion about whether this team will or won't succeed, but Munch isn't even close to being believable.

Our season isn't going to hinge on Jermaine Dye. It's going to hinge on Contreras and Floyd.

But if you went into last season thinking Dye wasn't an injury risk given his history and age, you were fooling yourself. Even if his previous injuries were flooky as rdiviali pointed out, they leave a toll.

Paulwny
02-25-2008, 12:49 PM
While I don't like Boras, it is Kenny's job to deal with him, and when he refuses, and cuts us out of prospects and free agents he represents, it in no way helps the team.

It may be JR who calls the shots when it comes to Boras. KW may only be doing what the boss says.

rdivaldi
02-25-2008, 12:49 PM
This is an accurate post.

Injuries that were "bad luck": Ozuna, Toby Hall

Injuries to Veteran and/or Aging Players w/a History of Health Problems: Dye, Erstad, Podsednik, Thome, Crede...are not bad luck..but part of the overall "law of averages" when you build a team around those type of players.

Why do Dye, Thome and Crede get thrown into there? I understand that Jim is getting a bit long in the tooth, thus he will be more injury prone, but if you look at the history of those 3 players over the past 5 years, I see one year each where they basically played in less than 100 games.

spiffie
02-25-2008, 12:52 PM
I have no problem with that assessment, my point was that even with elevated injury risk, it took a ton of bad luck for all of those injuries to happen at the same time.

I notice Munch is now pounding out the "Dye is sure to be injured this season" to support his bull**** assessments.

I don't mind rational discussion about whether this team will or won't succeed, but Munch isn't even close to being believable.
I agree it took bad luck, but it also took a lack of foresight to not see it as likely that some of them would be hurt. The only place where there seemed to be a plan B was at 3B with Fields. Otherwise Plan B seemed to involve way too much Andy Gonzalez and lots of terrible outings by Contreras. If you're going to have a starting OF of three guys with moderate to huge injury risks, you need to have something more than "well, let's hope all the minor leagues can get it together at the same time."

And when it comes to 2007, it looks like much the same issue, only substitute "will our minor leaguers come around?" for some of the "will our old vets stay healthy?" concerns. Thome is another year older and likely worse, especially against LHP. Jose is still old and likely to have lingering health issues the rest of his career. We are counting on at least 6 coin flip players in crucial spots (Richar, Fields, Quentin, Danks, Floyd, Logan) who have no real history of success at the major league level. And we need to hope that everyone who did well last year remains doing well this year. If we have any slippage from Buehrle or Vazquez (who is his own giant question mark still) then what?

You say it took a great deal of bad luck for 2007 to happen, and I can see your point. But if you're going to say that, then I think the inverse has to hold true, that it will take a very large dose of good luck for the 2008 crew to have a shot at the 93-95 wins it will take to make the playoffs this year. And that rather long set of odds is why I would have liked to see the moves we make be a little more forward looking than so 2008-centered.

voodoochile
02-25-2008, 01:00 PM
You say it took a great deal of bad luck for 2007 to happen, and I can see your point. But if you're going to say that, then I think the inverse has to hold true, that it will take a very large dose of good luck for the 2008 crew to have a shot at the 93-95 wins it will take to make the playoffs this year. And that rather long set of odds is why I would have liked to see the moves we make be a little more forward looking than so 2008-centered.

At the moment as currently configured, I see the Sox winning 87 games give or take. A deal now or at the deadline could change that assessment very easily.

The Sox actually have more veteran depth at the moment than you are talking about also. Uribe is probably the best IF utility man in the majors and at the moment Crede is still on the team. So Richar and Fields aren't locks at the moment to even be the starters. Ozuna adds another backup to that plan and the Sox have 4 players who have all had at least some success on the major league level to fill 3 OF slots (if you count Swisher and Dye as sure things then you really have 2 guys fighting it out for the final spot).

The main question mark is the starting pitching. If Crede gets traded for a starter (either packaged with one of they young guys or alone) then it helps the starting pitching but hurts the IF depth. But that's where Uribe and Ozuna come into play.

At the least the Sox have good experience at the back up slots at present. So it's not strictly boom or bust for those positions you mentioned above.

spiffie
02-25-2008, 01:11 PM
At the moment as currently configured, I see the Sox winning 87 games give or take. A deal now or at the deadline could change that assessment very easily.

The Sox actually have more veteran depth at the moment than you are talking about also. Uribe is probably the best IF utility man in the majors and at the moment Crede is still on the team. So Richar and Fields aren't locks at the moment to even be the starters. Ozuna adds another backup to that plan and the Sox have 4 players who have all had at least some success on the major league level to fill 3 OF slots (if you count Swisher and Dye as sure things then you really have 2 guys fighting it out for the final spot).

The main question mark is the starting pitching. If Crede gets traded for a starter (either packaged with one of they young guys or alone) then it helps the starting pitching but hurts the IF depth. But that's where Uribe and Ozuna come into play.

At the least the Sox have good experience at the back up slots at present. So it's not strictly boom or bust for those positions you mentioned above.
I'm working on the idea Crede will be traded. If that doesn't happen I would obviously reassess. But from everything KW has said I expect he will be gone, and I don't foresee there being much help for the 25-man coming from the deal. If anything I would love to see Crede go for a bullpen arm.

To me Uribe doesn't really bring a whole lot to the table. If Richar fails and we get Uribe at 2B, to me that's not helpful. I really think for the Sox to do much this year they need Richar to become a solid player, bringing some speed and some decent OBP to the order. Juan's all or nothing 20 HR and 290 OBP seems like more of a detriment than a plus.

Ozuna is interesting. The Ozuna who some people advocated should be a starter was a waterbug of a player, jumping and flying around, wreaking havoc. How will he be post injury? Can he put up numbers like he did in 2006? If he's healthy he's a nice backup, though I'm not sure if he could handle the grind as an everyday player, especially in the OF. But I will be glad to see him back.

I just don't see the pitching there for the long haul. We're asking for Danks and Floyd to give us 400 quality innings, Jose to give us 200 quality innings, and Vazquez to give us 200 quality innings. I think some of that will happen, but not enough most likely. To me this team is probably around .500. If things go well maybe the mid-80's, 86 or 87 on a good day. The problem is it seems more likely to me that they win 75 than 95. I just don't see the potential for a team that can truly emerge as a contender. At best I think we get decent.

dickallen15
02-25-2008, 01:15 PM
It's been 2 freaking years and the Sox have had one 90 win team since then. Yes, they also had a 90 loss team when everything that could have gone wrong did. Let's give it some time to play out and see what happens.

Much is just pissed because the Sox traded the greatest pitcher in the history of the world a few months ago...:rolleyes:
Why do people blame 2007 on what ever could go wrong did, but don't say whatever could go right did in 2005, its all KW and Ozzie? The AL Central was pretty weak for several years, and the White Sox did not capitalize. My argument is 1 playoff appearance in 7 years is below average in a 5 team division. It wasn't because of KW a ball rolled through Tony G's legs. It wasn't because of KW El Duque got out of a huge mess in Boston (If you recall KW didn't even want him on the postseason roster, the coaches talked him into it, if those 2 things don't happen, perhaps the White Sox don't even get out of the first round and Kenny goes from lifetime genius in some minds to dope of the year, as his buddy OEO would say, playoff appearances mean nothing( I disagree with that btw). Amazing how people's opinions of him are determined by something he has no control of.

rdivaldi
02-25-2008, 01:18 PM
To me this team is probably around .500. If things go well maybe the mid-80's, 86 or 87 on a good day. The problem is it seems more likely to me that they win 75 than 95. I just don't see the potential for a team that can truly emerge as a contender. At best I think we get decent.

Sorry to bring up gambling, but I always look to Vegas odds makers for good predictors of season wins. The Sox are at 77 right now.

Noneck
02-25-2008, 01:39 PM
Sorry to bring up gambling, but I always look to Vegas odds makers for good predictors of season wins. The Sox are at 77 right now.
That's the best indicator. Money talks bull**** walks.

TomBradley72
02-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Why do Dye, Thome and Crede get thrown into there? I understand that Jim is getting a bit long in the tooth, thus he will be more injury prone, but if you look at the history of those 3 players over the past 5 years, I see one year each where they basically played in less than 100 games.

Dye had several year hampered by injuries prior to joining the WSox (one reason we were able to sign him so cheaply in 2005) + his age I believe makes him somewhat of a health risk each year.

Crede's back problems were well known prior to 2007...so his problems were not "bad luck".

Thome was coming off back problems when he came to the WSox, he's aging, he was playing hurt in the 2nd half of 2006 (when he had only 32 RBIs after the All Star break).

None of their health problems in 2007 can be considered "bad luck"...but were part of the "law of averages" based on their health history.

kittle42
02-25-2008, 02:14 PM
Sorry to bring up gambling, but I always look to Vegas odds makers for good predictors of season wins. The Sox are at 77 right now.

That's pretty fair based on last year's record and how the division shapes up this year. I'll take the over when I'm out there in March just for fun.

spiffie
02-25-2008, 03:56 PM
That's pretty fair based on last year's record and how the division shapes up this year. I'll take the over when I'm out there in March just for fun.
I'd probably take the over on 77 as well. If you want to make it hard for me, set the line at 82.5 and watch me pull a "Scanners" trying to decide :D:

jabrch
02-25-2008, 05:22 PM
Dye had several year hampered by injuries prior to joining the WSox (one reason we were able to sign him so cheaply in 2005) + his age I believe makes him somewhat of a health risk each year.


Other than shattering his fibula from a foul ball, what injuries had he had up until last year?

MisterB
02-25-2008, 05:27 PM
Other than shattering his fibula from a foul ball, what injuries had he had up until last year?

In 2003 he tore some cartilage in his knee, and later that season he injured his shoulder in a collision at home plate. He missed about 3 months between the two injuries.

munchman33
02-25-2008, 05:28 PM
Other than shattering his fibula from a foul ball, what injuries had he had up until last year?


He'd always been dealing with quad and knee issues since that injury. He dealt with them all season in 2004 with Oakland. He dealt with them in the beginning of 2005 and was downright terrible to start the year. Last year, he battled them all first half.

He's always going to have them. And he can either miss time because of it or play poorly through it. But it isn't going to magically go away. The man shattered his fibula. He's going to be constantly adjust not to pressure it, and will injury other areas because of it.

munchman33
02-25-2008, 05:29 PM
In 2003 he tore some cartilage in his knee, and later that season he injured his shoulder in a collision at home plate. He missed about 3 months between the two injuries.

I forgot about that shoulder injury.