Gregory Pratt

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 09:43 PM) That's a great point. 90 victory seasons are something for KW to hang his hat on, its the players fault if they don't do more. If Beane or Ryan put together a playoff team and they lose in the first or second round, they don't know how to build championship teams, its not the players fault they don't win, its the flawed roster. KW has had 1 team out of 7 that's played up to or beyond expectations. That's 14.3%. You can blame the players, but they have been different every year. You can blame the manager. He's had a couple of those. Or maybe just maybe its the guy responsible for putting together the roster. The problem with 2007 is KW is hard headed and didn't want to admit he was wrong about 2006. He wanted to bring back the same guys because he said they won 90 games and couldn't have played worse. Wrong again. Its that same stubborness why we have to watch Gavin Floyd surrender gopher ball after gopher ball. It wasn't White Sox scouts who suggested KW get Floyd. It was KW himself. Ozzie doesn't want him on the roster. He has said a few times he has to see what Kenny wants to do. Ozzie has less say in Gavin Floyd than any other player he's ever managed. One of KW's apologists on this board actually ripped into your boy JS in one thread about a month ago saying winning the division gets old. Well, partner. How many World Series rings have you got?! You know, players have to perform, to be sure, but it is up to the GM to assemble the roster, decide who will gel, make decisions about their future, project what they'll do over the next few years with scouts they trust, decide what to do with them, decide when to cut loose and when to hold on, when to hold or bluff, who to give up and who not to give up, who's a good investment and who isn't, etc. etc. etc. Let's not overstate a GM's importance but let's not understate it. The General Manager is of highest importance because he decides when it's time for a change or partial changes or who will play when. He hires directors of personnel, he hires the scouts (at least in Atlanta he does, but I THINK that's the GMs job everywhere), he does all these things and obviously the players have to perform, but you've got to know what to expect and what they project by your analysis. Do we do that? Not well, so far as I can tell. We don't sell high. There's a lot to criticize and discuss, to be sure, but I don't think, and you agree, that KW is good or significantly good at any of these things. As always, I appreciate your insight, and I'm done with this thread. Finished my biology and now I've got to wrap up my political writing and go to bed. Good night!

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 09:10 PM) LOL -- I'd say the vast majority of us don't need you to tell us that the Braves are a great organization. If you actually feel the need to explain to us why the Braves are a model, then I really shouldn't be having this conversation with you in the first place. Not a model, the model. And once again, you've missed the point, but that's okay.

I don't care about little irritations you have with me holding Schuerholz as The Model, The Example, so feel free to criticize me on the superficiality of "I don't like how often you talk about how good Schuerholz is and the Braves are". First of all, I wasn't even talking about Schuerholz specifically in the Smoltz post and in fact criticized Atlanta management for the move. I just think it's funny that people are saying, "Why are you holding up the Braves as a model of anything? Why do you cite Schuerholz has a good GM when you're talking about why KW is bad? Why are the Braves so hot and the White Sox not?" I've criticized fathom for talking so much about the Cubs, and you and Tony, too. Doesn't mean you should stop. By all means, feel free to go on and on and on about how that terrible team scares you because if they win, what? They won't. That's the end of it...but if they do.......Hendry is as good as KW!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 08:33 PM) 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. Absolutely not. Quite a few of those guys have a ring, just like KW, with far more sustained success and many less embarrassments than KW. And you're criticizing my last reply for lack of profundity? From the guy who is almost baselessly claiming that KW has been all that hot? Especially when you analyze the teams and the division and all sorts of other factors, he hasn't been at all. I've had plenty of substance in my posts on the subject, thanks, so let's not pretend that I'm just throwing out a "No" and you're saying, "KW good" and I say "No" and you say "KW is good, sorry" and I say, "No." I've given my reasons why he's not even top twelve, and probably less. I've given my reasons why your reason is faulty -- "competitive in the end!" of the season isn't so impressive when his teams are competing with the Comedy Central that he couldn't even win until 2005. When you go through that list and point out good, substantial reasons why those GMs aren't as "good" as KW, let me know and we'll have a discussion that'll be more "profound," whatever that means to you bro.

You're really good at quoting one of my sentences in a longer post and trying to make it into something or other that it isn't. I love it when you analyze my posts, especially when you say, "I'm sure there's something relevant there" then add a lively sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh. Thanks! And as you concede, there is, actually, relevance and it's quite clear. But let's rephrase: if Tony ever has serious criticisms of Ozzie Guillen and wants to say, "Earl Weaver used to say this, do this, call for that, believed blah blah blah," he'd have every right and it would be more valid than someone (not Tony, or anyone on this board) saying "I don't believe Ozzie should call for Sean Tracey to plunk anyone. My mom agrees." Saying, "I think we need boppers, as Earl Weaver used to say," which is more valid than any uncited, "Oh, I think blah blah blah." You know what I'm saying? Probably, but sheeeeeeeeeeesh, right? But really, I've got to go read a Biology chapter, so we'll carry this conversation out later tonight, if you've got some kind of counter. I just like to weigh my opinions with people much smarter than me. Makes me feel like I'm not crazy, and dispels any argument that "You're unreasonable." "You're crazy." No, not at all. I might be wrong, but I'm not pretending that anything which hasn't been done, or shouldn't be done, or would never work or happen can be done or happen.

I've got work to do, though, so I'll talk to you guys later. I'm done, for tonight, listing GMs that are much better than KW, especially against terrible arguments like "The Ring!" which somehow don't apply to Gillick. But to much better GMs? Like Beane? Oh, no, they don't have a ring. KW do. KW is an elite GM. KW is top ten. Top five! Top quarter and a fourth. Top this, top that. He tops most GMs in an organization that once had Hawk as GM and a bunch of other terrible, terrible GMs and owners and players and history. So he's top. Yeah.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 08:13 PM) BTW, why are you so sure they won't offer Renteria for Garland? They already did this year, and it's a definite possibility again this offseason. Because there will be similar pitchers available via free agency and probably better ones. I'd take Silva for some cash over Garland for Renteria. Besides, we wouldn't do Renteria for Garland, Garland's losing a ton of value, etc. etc. Garland isn't going for Renteria straight-up.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 08:11 PM) They got such little production from Thorman to start the year. Now, they're severely lacking in starting pitching. Who knows what type of starting pitchers they might have been able to acquire if they still had someone like Salty to offer. There were all sorts of concerns about Mike Gonzalez's elbow last year, as his velocity started to decrease. I still contend that that trade didn't kill anything. I will say, though, that even Schuerholz makes mistakes. I'm not sure that was one, per se. LaRoche certainly hasn't been a loss, so in that sense it wasn't. Could he have made a different move? Perhaps. But he'd still have probably needed to up the production at first base, so it isn't exactly NOLaRoche//GonzalezNO =/ Salty for Pitcher

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 08:01 PM) 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. It's an interesting balance, to be sure.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:58 PM) 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. That's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard, bro. Seven years out of seven those GMs are better GMs than KW.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:53 PM) What makes Omar Minaya a good GM? The fact that he took over a franchise with some good young players and was allowed to spend all that he wanted in free agency? Or perhaps over-paying for a declining and injury-prone Pedro? And Pat Gillick... the guy who paid $10 million for Freddy Garcia last winter and has yet to do anything in the post-season with a talented Phillies team? LOL! I'll take KW and the ring over Minaya, Gillick, Beane, and Shapiro. The latter two are probably better GMs than Kenny, but I care about championships. Does Billy Beane have a trophy case for all of his Sabermetrics Championships? I love how you go on about the ring but ignore Gillick's, too.

QUOTE(fathom @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:56 PM) Pratt....how come you never mention that the LaRoche for Gonzalez trade killed the Braves this year? Gonzalez was a non-factor due to the injury, and because the lack of production they were getting from Thorman at 1b, they had to trade a huge package to get Teixeira. LaRoche hasn't been great this year, but I never understood why they were so eager to get rid of him. Uh, because Mike Gonzalez is very good and they couldn't really have foreseen his injury and they wanted to build up the bullpen. It wasn't a bad move at all especially since they got Lillibridge. But no, LaRoche wouldn't have made a big difference at first this year. He hasn't been that good at all. That trade "killed the Braves"? Give me a break.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:53 PM) What makes Omar Minaya a good GM? The fact that he took over a franchise with some good young players and was allowed to spend all that he wanted in free agency? Or perhaps over-paying for a declining and injury-prone Pedro? And Pat Gillick... the guy who paid $10 million for Freddy Garcia last winter and has yet to do anything in the post-season with a talented Phillies team? LOL! I'll take KW and the ring over Minaya, Gillick, Beane, and Shapiro. The latter two are probably better GMs than Kenny, but I care about championships. Does Billy Beane have a trophy case for all of his Sabermetrics Championships? Right, it's KW's responsibility for us winning but Beane and Shapiro for them losing. Gillick has a longer track record of success than KW and is a better GM. I'm not going to spend time arguing over whether or not Minaya is better than KW. Most people would tell you so. Ask around somewhere else and see what you get.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:36 PM) 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. It was definitely easy for the early years of his stint. No powerhouses from 02-04, that's for sure.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:34 PM) 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? I know someone just like that. I should say: I don't necessarily hold KW to Schuerholz. Nobody should be judged against John Schuerholz unequivocally. But I can think of ten GMs who are, in my view, better than KW: Jocketty Towers Gillick Minaya Beinfest Beane Ryan Cashman Moore Stoneman Epstein Shapiro Schuerholz I'd take any of these guys over KW, WS ring or not. You know, it's an old embarrassment, but when you trade for the wrong player with the same name, it shows you don't do your homework. Maybe he's gotten better since then, you say, or "He has gotten better!" but I'd point you to Day's slider, Gavin Floyd and Nick Masset. Adkins. Plenty have pointed out how bad his original plan was for 2005, DA most explicitly, and other than that year and 06, he hasn't been that good. And considering he brought back the same team that died in the second half, and didn't do anything to upgrade it early in the season or prepare for next year with players who should go, I don't see how he's been good as the decision maker behind trades, prospect analysis and scouting. Maybe next year you'll agree with me. Maybe htis offseason he'll masterfully make trades and sign some good free agents and we'll be gravy. But I doubt it, and when things stay sour, I won't be surprised.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:16 PM) 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. Also see Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 07:23 PM) 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. 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.

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."

As opposed to the Chicago Cubs who could take on the world right about now!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 06:52 PM) Given Turner Field's reputation as something of a pitcher's park that can cut down a little bit on home runs...I think the Braves and Sox would be an ideal match for a Jon Garland for a shortstop type swap. Esp. given that JS has to expect he'll lose Tex after next year, and thus may have to do a genuine rebuilding program. The Braves won't be rebuilding with Schuerholz as GM. And I don't think that they'll be giving up Renteria for Garland. I don't know for sure, but I imagine that he'd be more interested in Vazquez, of our starters. Why would he take Garland and give up one of his three SS trading chips when he could get Silva, who is very similar and a very good 3/4, without giving up talent?

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 06:17 PM) You can explain all you want, but when half your posts are slurp jobs of the Braves and their organization, there is a right for criticism. I have read 3 books about the Orioles and Earl Weaver, and I have probably made 4 or 5 posts, tops, referencing it. I learned a ton, think he has some of the best philosophies ever, but I don't talk about Weaver like it's propaganda.... What's wrong with citing my source? If people say, "Oh, if you were GM, what would you do better than KW? Who says that would work? Why is that a good idea?" Because John Schuerholz knows a little somethingsomething about being an Executive. I don't care what criticisms people have of my admiration for Schuerholz. But maybe I'll spend a week for the next fifteen-twenty three weeks or so talking about what GMs are better than Kenny Williams and what philosophies the White Sox should utilize instead of mentioning the Braves when "winning traditions," "General Managing For Dummies" and "Scouting Scouting Scouting" are relevant topics for discussion.

Democrats have no business governing with long-term Democratic congresses.

How many times do I have to explain that the book was one thing and plenty of other articles, SI stories and interviews have been about as well? Besides that, what Smoltz is doing certainly deserves some credit and praise, and is as worthy of mention here as DA CUBS!1111111 :phear

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 12:00 PM) So is this going to be the next trend for athletes? Drink while drunk, crash your car, leave the scene until you sober up, then admit to a single car accident. Something like that worked for the miserable and abhorrent Edward Kennedy.

John Smoltz is a consumate professional and team player. He's as tough as nails. He beat the Astros in the playoffs with his shoulder aching beyond belief and put himself out of the playoffs with his gutsy performance, should the Braves have advanced that year. Today he's pitching on short rest against the Marlins for the Braves. I appreciate his willingness to go, considering his age and he IS a power pitcher, and it's nice that the Braves have a guy who they can go to in situations like these who can and will go out and do all he can, but I question the soundness of such a decision. I'm not sure I believe they'll make it to the playoffs (I am almost certain they won't win the division this year), considering their rough rotation past Smoltz/Hudson, but I guess they really do, and they're going to battle, and Smoltz thinks it's worth it. Good for him. I can't believe I went a long time with Smoltz as my LEAST favorite of the Big Three. I expect the Braves to be really good next year with someone like Silva or Livan Hernandez in the 3/4 spot, probably a big trade, a fresher bullpen (volatile though they can be, certain teams are good at building bullpens and the Padres/Braves are those), and a good lineup. Should be interesting to see.