NorthSideSox72

I'm getting a little concerned about D Lucy's hitting. Not that he's been spectacular previously, but he was pretty good at AA this year. Now in his first month of AAA, he is hitting just under .200. And worse, he is striking out a ton, which is something he hasn't done at ANY level. I wonder what the deal is there? Hopefully he can turn it around and get back to his more typical .260-.285 range that he has tended to have in his previous full seasons at various levels. With his solid defense, strong arm, very good pitcher handling and a little speed, he could be a great addition to the big club in 2008 replacing Toby Hall.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 10:00 PM) What makes someone queer doesn't matter. Treating them with respect does. It's pretty clear that the Senator from Idaho didn't see fit to treat queer people with respect. It's pretty clear that the Senator engages in behavior that makes me think he doesn't respect himself either. It's both kinda sad. Perfect, right there.

Just another point to add to the discussion. As people have noted, the Sox are operated as a profitable business. As such, there are budget constraints, and KW (just like most GM's) has to work within them. So why are people ignoring salaries? Some seem to have forgotten... the Sox were NOT a high payroll team until 2006. So, how about we look at GM's measured in terms of efficiency? How effective they are with the salary cap they are given? Let's look at the Sox under KW. Here are the Sox final standings records in W-L (the single most accurate measure of a team's talent level), along with the team's payroll, and their (ranks) in all of baseball... 2001 Season -----Final Record: 83-79 (14) -----Payroll: $62.3M (16) 2002 Season -----Final Record: 81-81 (14) -----Payroll: $57.0M (18) 2003 Season -----Final Record: 86-76 (11) -----Payroll: $51.0M (22) 2004 Season -----Final Record: 83-79 (15) -----Payroll: $65.2M (15) 2005 Season -----Final Record: 99-63 (2) -----Payroll: $75.1M (13) 2006 Season -----Final Record: 90-72 (6) -----Payroll: $108.6M (5) Anyone notice a pattern or two? Every single year 2001-2005, the Sox placed AT OR ABOVE what their payroll should have dictated. And in 2006, they placed one slot behind it. So until this year, which has certainly been a disaster, KW has put together a consistent history of doing better with the resources he was given than the majority of GM's in baseball. The numbers prove that. So, again, we see that KW has done better than most GM's at putting teams on the field that are as competitive as possible within budgetary constraints. You can use W-L as above, or staying competitive late, or World Series championships. Pick your measure. By ANY of those measures, he has done better than the majority of current or contemporary GM's in the game.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 08:41 PM) Craig Wilson? I was thinking of Tom Collaro. Tons of K's, but hitting well over .300 with big power numbers. Plays RF. Something to consider as a possible backup OF, if you are looking for one that isn't a speed guy.

QUOTE(winninguglyin83 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 08:09 PM) Why Dewon Day? haven't we suffered enough. That's kind of the idea. Players with talent and a possible future in the majors but who need some specific work... play in the fall league.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 08:33 PM) Slammin' Sammy!!! I can think of a cheaper, younger version with a lot of power and better defense, he's already in our system. If you are looking for a power hitting backup OF who can play right field.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 08:09 PM) That's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard, bro. Seven years out of seven those GMs are better GMs than KW. I am stunned by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort. Believe what you want, "bro". You can disagree with my argument, but what it all means is that you have to judge on the long view in this game. And in the long view, KW has been more successful than most GM's, based on the reasons I gave. Half those names on your list cannot claim the same.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:31 PM) Also see Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Yes, which could work that opposite way - Clinton at Prez, after the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, one might say was a pretty effective President in terms of getting things accomplished and reigning in spending. So maybe the best case scenario, in general, is for the legislature and President to be from different parties. That has certainly been suggested before.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:28 PM) His points and mine about mediocrity "in the final results" isn't just about not making the playoffs it's about their not-much-better-than-average record over his tenure, even when they were "competitive" in a crap division against other abysmal teams, and our failure to cinch it up a few more times is especially embarrassing considering The Comedy Central. Personally, I don't think he's a top ten GM so he isn't even top third to me, but I suppose you see something I don't in those years. Thanks for the honest answers, though, even if I think you're wrong as can be. Dude, you're killing me. That right there sums up why we see things differently. You think I'm wrong... I don't think anyone is wrong. Because baseball doesn't work that way. There is no magic formula, some secret that only a select few know. If there was, baseball would be boring as hell. Instead, its a game of chance and odds, and everything else I mentioned. Want an analogy? Put together a lineup of random MLB players. Let's say the lineup contains both A-Rod and Gustavo Molina (stop laughing). On any given day, Molina might go 3-for-4 and knock in the winning run, while A-Rod gets the golden sombrero. So do we fire A-Rod? Or do we know that 5 games out of 7, he'll do better than Molina. Kind of like 5 years out of 7, KW put teams out there that were in the hunt into the second half, which by nature means the Sox were among the top third of teams competitively. Therefore, KW is better than your average GM. So, I say keep him. If this last analogy doesn't work for anyone, then I give up.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:28 PM) His points and mine about mediocrity "in the final results" isn't just about not making the playoffs it's about their not-much-better-than-average record over his tenure, even when they were "competitive" in a crap division against other abysmal teams, and our failure to cinch it up a few more times is especially embarrassing considering The Comedy Central. Personally, I don't think he's a top ten GM so he isn't even top third to me, but I suppose you see something I don't in those years. Thanks for the honest answers, though, even if I think you're wrong as can be. The "Comedy Central" was not easy throughout KW's time. Maybe in the few years you've been following, but not the entire stint. Some years have been tough - others not. The whole weak division / strong division thing tends to even out over a number of years. Doesn't last long.

As I read my last post, I suppose I should explain why I think a GM doesn't win a world series, since I seem to be alone in that view... A GM builds a roster of players. These players are, despite what some seem to think, human beings. Because of that, there is not mathematical formula, no pure science that tells anyone exactly what a player will do in the future. I think we can all agree on that. Sabermetrics is a system - but even it is not 100% reliable. No such thing in the world of human behavior. So take all that, and then realize that assembling a roster is part math, part science, part psychology, part finance, and part art. That's uncontrollable dynamics, from the GM's perspective. Here is another uncontrollable for a GM - he/she doesn't play. That means his relationship to winning and losing is indirect. Oh, and one more factor - baseball involves some degree of randomness. Sometimes a lot of it. So what this all means is... if a GM is good at all the math, science, psychology, finance and art... then they will field teams that are in the vicinity of the best teams, most years. Some years there may be titles - others not. But that final push is on the field of play - not in the GM's hands. Therefore, I see the GM's role as putting competitive teams on the field, and the players/coaches role as executing on the field. Is that more clear, GP?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:20 PM) What do you say, Northside, to the points raised by Dick Allen about the overall mediocrity of KW's teams', especially relative to the division? Especially as it counters your points about KW's "past success." I think there is some subjectivity. But I stand by my original statement - KW is among the better GM's. Not the best probably, but top quarter or so, if I had to take a flier. DA sees mediocrity. I see a GM who fit my definition of a winning GM as stated earlier - his teams were competitive, even late in the season, most years under his command. That, to me, is the best mark of a good GM. I do understand DA's points about mediocrity in the final results (not making the playoffs). But I put that more on the shoulders of the players and coaches. Just my perspective on the way the game works.

Just curious... if every time you posted something that was black-on-white or hispanic-on-white racism, someone else posted an example of the opposite direction... how would you react? I fail to see the point of these. I'm pretty aware that racism in all directions and all forms still exists. Is that the point?

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 06:11 PM) Democrats have no business governing with long-term Democratic congresses. Funny as that sounds, Illinois seems to indicate you are correct. IL worked pretty well with GOP governors like Thompson and Edgar, along with Dem legislatures. Now with Blago in there, its a mess.

1. A General Manager cannot win a world series. Can't be done. A General Manager can put the most talented team on the fields possible, within his/her budget constraints. In other words, they can field the most competitive team possible. That TEAM wins a World Series. 2. Just to be clear - I am not saying KW gets to stay as a reward for 2005, or as a reward for his success. Not at all. I am saying that his success thus far means that he is that much more likely to succeed in the future. Therefore, firing him after one bad year is short-sighted and very likely to result in the situation being worse.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 03:51 PM) I totally agree. I was just trying to creat conversation. Yes. Yes you were.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 03:58 PM) When did 1 playoff appearance in 7 years and a team in year #7 that is in last place at the end of August with a bad farm system and old and very expensive MLB squad make you one of the more successful GM's in the game? I and others have made these points before. A GM's job is to equip the team to be competitive - in the chase, so to speak. In that regard, Kenny has put the team there the great majority of his seasons. Perfect he is not - this year's team was not good enough. But he is among a small handful of GM's who have achieved what I just stated as the ultimate success - competitive teams - most of his seasons. Once in the chase... its up to the players and the coaches.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 03:37 PM) I could be way off, but I believe A lot of us figured playoff contention was in the cards for 2007, even after ST.... I'll admit it. I was thinking low 90's in wins prior to ST. ST scared me, but I still thought they'd be in the thick of it. The outfield scared me too. But I still held out hope for the post-season until probably June-ish.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 03:41 PM) I like sweets, it has led me to be overweight. Should I "come to peace with myself" and be a fat ass who likes sweets or get some responsibility in my life and battle a destructive behavior? The problem with many people is the inability to see the degrees of an issue, meaning: the resolution of this story isn't sen Craig accepts himself as a homosexual and lives happily ever after. The fact that he behaved in some homosexual way doesn't mean he's 100% homosexual and therefore that's the only lifestyle for him. "but homosexuality is a genetic issue"... so is being overweight, but there are plenty of people with responsible grips on their lives to overcome a propensity for certain ways of life. Everyone wants to see homosexuality put in the "genetic category" because logically it means "I, the receiver of the dna, have no control over it." But this, unfortunately, adds to the argument the fact that many or most genetic abberations are considered negative things...oh except homosexuality and Antonio Alfonseca's sixth finger. um... I didn't say any of those things. And yes, if you like sweets and that results in you being overweight, then you probably will be heathier and happier if you come to terms with that. Those "terms" may mean quitting, or moderation, or just doing it. Who knows? You are trying to make this into an argument that no one is making with you. Here is what I am saying - do whatever you want to. Just don't tell people they are somehow wrong or evil, when you do those things yourself. Its the plain old glass houses thing, when it comes down to it. Nothing more.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 03:24 PM) Sub-question: So everyone that has some kind of homosexual desire whether acted upon or not is automatically a homosexual and therefore "should come to peace with himself? cos that sounds like a load of crap, to be perfectly honest. I think "come to peace with himself" is actually a very good phrase. If you are constantly voting and campaigning against something that you yourself do... clearly, you are internally conflicted.

Major equity indeces down 2 to 2.5% today. Consumer confidence with biggest drop in 6 years. Housing prices falling further, and the trend doesn't appear to be levelling yet.

QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 03:06 PM) On a serious note: Balta implied that his behavior and his voting record seemed contradictory. Does one's struggle with a problem or sin or whatever you want to call it, automatically make you a hypocrite if you vote against those things? He certainly represents/represented more than himself in the senate. When said hypocrisy results in OTHER peoples' lives being effected detrimentally due to his onw denial... I can't possibly feel bad for him.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) I must say it is amazing Cooper gets no blame. I understand most of the pitchers suck, but so does most of the line-up. There is a difference between derserving some blame and being fired. All four people listed deserve some of the responsibility for this season (as well as for 2005, and every other season they have been a part of).

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) oh, and you don't think it was Carl Rove and John Ashcroft who REALLY took down the towers? it was. The Bush regime not only faked the intelligence but had been planning it for years. In the mid 90's Rove broke into the White house and planted forged intel reports with Bill Clinton, thus making the president at the time think there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You see, because of this a former president and congress also believed in this big lie, making it much easier for the Bush regime to launch a fake terrorist attack on US soil. Why you ask? for oil. oh, you don't believe me? well here is some proof http://www.911truth.org/ http://www.loosechange911.com/lc2e.htm http://www.dailykos.com/ I like how you added dailykos in there.

I'd be willing to bet that those who want Ozzie and Kenny fired are likely to be the younger posters, and those willing to be more patient are the older ones. I guess I'm just old. The 2000-present period has been better than any stretch in my lifetime, and for that matter, in the past century for the White Sox. That doesn't mean I like losing - it means I am not about to endorse firing people who have proven so successful, based on one lousy season.