iamshack

I'll be pulling for the Tigers. At least I can pretend they have a good team that hypothetically should have had a chance to beat us this year. I continue to be mystified as to how the Twins manage to win games. I have a hard time accepting that they are better than us and watching them win anything is pure agony to me. Especially after being forced to watch many of our games with them through the Minnesota feed - I despise them and their entire organization - from their lowest unpaid volunteer all the way up to the top.

I think we're going to miss Dotel quite a bit when he's gone. Teams always seem to take one or two guys for granted and then the next year, when they've got only two decent bullpen arms, they realize just how valuable those other two "mediocre" arms they let go were. Bullpens are certainly volatile from season to season, but a bullpen is a cumulative creature. A good bullpen lives and breathes by having many solid working parts. You start taking one or two away, and the others start suffering drastically. You lose Dotel, and you start having to pitch others even more, which in turn, fatigues them and affects their performance. I think we have been toeing the line between using Thornton just enough and too much the last few years. You start leaning on him any more, and his performance starts declining. Suddenly you find yourself with no one who can perform. I seem to recall this happening with just about everyone in our pen with the exception of Bobby in 07', and that's because the closer usually gets shielded by this phenomenon because the damage is already done by the time you get to the 8th or 9th.

Woah, I didn't realize Villalona was in jail!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 10:43 AM) You are kind of agreeing with me here, but maybe I didn't articulate it well. I am in agreement with you that Ozzie, Walker and the coaching staff are almost assuredly privy to every piece of data we are, and then some. What I am saying is, it looks to me like Walker is missing the boat in two areas. One, since the data is there but the performance of his charges reflects an apparent lack of that knowledge, then there is a disconnect there. Could be the players not listening or implementing, could be Walker not delivering it in a useful way, or could be (probably is) some combination. Two, I think his focus is wrong. Look at Coop. Coop spends lots of time coaching the pitchers on their mechanics and delivery and strategy, but he clearly ALSO makes sure that Ozzie knows what he needs to know. It appears to me (I know, its just my view), that Walker doesn't do this. So I am not at all saying the data isn't available. I am saying that Walker's focus, and his ability to get his hitters in line with the information, both appear to be off, and are not good matches for a manager like Ozzie who needs some help in this area. No, I knew what you're saying. What I am saying is that just because the lineups and the pinch hitters don't always appear to jive with what data we have seen should suggest, perhaps there is other data and input we are not privy to which is driving the decisions that we are not understanding. Or...maybe we are right and Ozzie just doesn't seem to care what the numbers say in many instances. Who knows, Walker might be pounding away at Ozzie with statistics up the wazoo and Ozzie just doesn't want to hear it. Until I know otherwise, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of having the right data in front of them, and being able to extract value from that data in order to make the decisions they do.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 10:02 AM) I don't think they are any more leaps than its a leap to say the advanced scouts aren't doing their jobs. Its all guesswork, since we are not in the clubhouse. I just think that Ozzie needs a hitting coach who can coach HIM on some things, as well as do a solid job preparing hitters with as much data as they can for what is coming up. And it APPEARS, from what I can see, that Walker is in the middle of the area where those things are failing. That doesn't mean 100% that it is his fault, but I think it increases the chances that he has some responsibility in it (by the very nature of his job). I won't tout the silly and obviously unfounded arguments about him supposedly teaching lift-and-pull, or that Walker doesn't know what he is doing, etc. I am going on actual evidence, as stated above, and trying to make the best guess on where the responsibility lies. And at least some of it lies with Walker. I have always struggled with this sort of argument. I find it hard to believe most of the time that people actually in the situation, who do this for a living, are not privy to AT THE VERY LEAST the same information that dopes like us can gather on the internet. I guess I have always assumed that not only do people in his position have this information available to them, but far more information available to them that we do not have. Additionally, he has input from players and other coaches as well. Another thing that complicates the issue is that Ozzie simply is not the most articulate of communicators. You're not going to get the kind of information out of him that you are going to hear from Tony LaRussa or Terry Francona. However, when he wants to (and why this is, I don't know), Ozzie has made it clear that he knows juuuusssstttt a bit more than we give him credit for. He just doesn't really care to discuss that with the press. While I know many of us question the lineup decisions and the PH decisions Ozzie makes, personally, I just have a really difficult time with the notion that I know better than he does. Others obviously do not share this sentiment. That being the case, I certainly don't believe he is above criticism - I just think there is a lot we are assuming that we don't know and it's difficult to isolate the issues without really knowing what is going on. And you are right, this reasoning applies to the advanced scouting as well. I stand corrected.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 09:50 AM) Is it the advanced scouts, or is it that the players and coaching staff are not paying attention to the information provided to them? This is one area that Ozzie is truly a weak manager. He doesn't understand matchups well, and doesn't adapt his lineups and in game decisions to fit the data available. I don't expect a manager to ALWAYS follow the numbers - baseball is not entirely about stats. But Ozzie regularly makes poor lineup and matchup decisions for no apparent reason at all, in the face of obvious reasons to do otherwise. Its always seemed odd to me that Ozzie handles his pitchers pretty well, but his position players not as well. I personally think that this is actually a good argument for why Walker should go - Ozzie and Coop obviously mesh and work well together on decisions (I doubt Ozzie was a genius on pitcher handling just on his own), where as the results (Ozzie's decisions) seem to indicate that Walker is not providing Ozzie with the right information. So there's one good reason to suggest that Walker may not be the right guy for Ozzie at hitting coach. I smell what you are stepping in, but I think there is WAY too much that we don't know about to make some of those leaps...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 08:21 AM) So are our fielders most of the time. 99 problems.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 09:14 AM) Heck yes! And add some better advanced scouts while we're at it. And yes Iamshack, I think Ozzie is to blame as well. Now those might be some better solutions. Our advanced scouts seem to be dropping the ball.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 09:05 AM) I don't know perhaps it's a little of both. I just find it odd that so many of you are trying to defend a guy who's had an unusually long tenure with average at best results. How many hitting coaches last in organization for this long? I'm not defending him. I'm arguing with the logic here that the reason for the White Sox sucking is Greg Walker's fault. Why does Greg Walker get the heat but not Ozzie? As long as we are establishing direct casual relationships between the coaching staff and player performance, I think they all should be fired, not just Walker.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 08:00 AM) Then how come it's the entire lineup that slumps late each year, including youngsters and whichever free agents we bring in? So what are you saying? That Greg Walker's method is impossible to maintain over the course of a long season? Or that Greg Walker himself cannot maintain his duties over the course of a long season?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 07:55 AM) Perhaps half. I'd be willing to bet it is a higher number than that...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 07:49 AM) I'd bet that 9 out of 10 organizations would have fired their hitting coach after several consecutive seasons of abysmal August and Septembers. That may be true. How many organizations out of 10 do you think would have fired Ozzie by now, for the team's performance as well as the comments he has made in the media?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 07:42 AM) So what I've learned from reading this thread is that hitting coaches pretty much have no impact on a team, they get paid a lot of money to just sit around, if players don't listen to them who cares, and unless they commit some sort of felony on their day off they should never be fired. I think if you're going to call for Walker's head you better call for Ozzie's as well. The causal link between coach and team performance is tenuous. I think there are other factors one must take into consideration. That being said, this is the first time in Ozzie's tenure that I have begun to consider the team without him as a manager.

QUOTE (Flash Tizzle @ Sep 23, 2009 -> 07:41 PM) I don't need a legitimate reason not to want Walker around. I hate his face, I hate his name, and whenever he talks I black out because my mind can't comprehend his redneck dialect. Get rid of him. SSI also seems to dislike him, so that's the only reason I need. Just another of your great posts - it's times like these that you add so much to this forum.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 10:52 AM) If Peavy didn't get hit with the line drive he would have made 3 MLB starts by now. Sadly neither Peavy or Rios would have really helped an offense that is incapable of scoring runs...I know Rios is playing like crap but he is right in line with the other unperformers offensively. These moves were made beacuse of the positive long term impact they would have as well as the positive impact they could have this year. Exactly. Very astute comment. How can you blame KW for Peavy getting hit in the elbow with a line drive? He did his homework, and the injury Jake had at the time the deal was made would have allowed him to come back right in the window they were guessing. Then the line drive off the elbow set everything back a month. This was somehow forseeable? As for Rios, I have said it before and I will again. Rios certainly did not hold up his end of the bargain, but unless the guy came here and hit like Albert Pujols in a contract year it wouldn't have really mattered. Over the past month, two guys have shown up offensively, maybe three, in Scottie, AJ, and Alexei. The rest of the team has sucked monkey nuts, especially Dye, Q and Beckham. Of course everyone was hoping Rios and Peavy would contribute this year. They didn't. What more is there to say? You want to blame KW? Fine, go ahead. It's really easy to blame him after the results are in. But it's a bit harder to attack his logic at the time the trades were made. I'd honestly love it if some of the constantly pessimistic posters and blamejunkies had a record of their decisions availablle for all to view. Then, instead of attacking your reasoning at the time you made your decision, I could just use hindsight to twist everything you did into a heap of rotten-smelling horses***.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 01:42 PM) So JR took out a loan for Rios and Peavy? Please state your source. I think he's too wise to do something like that. You are ridiculous.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 01:03 PM) No I'm not. Read your post. You are saying when they say there is no money available, there actually may be money available. Its precisely the point I've been making. Regardless, the bottom line is $60 million committed to Alex Rios whether they can afford it or not, and I'm assuming his checks will clear, and regarless of the money coming off the books, at the very least it seems to be $60 million that could have been allocated towards something else. The good news is, usually when you judge a trade or move so quickly as a bust, they seem to turn themselves around after a while. Rios is better than he's played and could be a star. You have mentioned several times about how the White Sox do business. Getting a guy like Alex Rios and taking on a contract his size without even giving any money back is definitely new ground for JR and KW. Oh, ok. So when you run your household on a monthly basis, do you look at your net income as your operating income, or do you use net income plus all available credit as your operating income?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 12:51 PM) I am an accountant, I understand the game. Then you are being even more incredibly stubborn about this than I thought was possible.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 12:39 PM) I was reading an article by someone a few weeks ago talking about some of the teams whose payrolls are really becoming ridiculously low. He claimed each team gets a $35 million infusion each year from MLB from licensing agreements. There will be a team or 3 next year that will make money if they locked the doors and didn't let anyone into their games. Every team receives about $70 million from the MLB's revenue sharing program. There are already teams making money before they sell one ticket, one beer, one hot dog. The Marlins have been doing this since 2005.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 12:11 PM) Didn't you say they don't have budgets, they just fit contracts in? The fact is many obligations expire and many are easier to rid yourself of in the offseason. Plus you give Garland an extension. He goes from $6 million or so to $8-9 million, you are finding space for $2-3 more , not the amount you owe Rios and Peavy. Next year its not so bad with all the money coming off the books. This year, they spent money they said they didn't have whether you want to admit it or not. Money didn't suddenly pop up. Remember KW commenting about the attendance for the Dodgers series? The Boston series was worse and they know the advanced sale and have a pretty good understanding of what realistically to expect as a walk up. Using one of your tactics, isn't it even slightly possible they did have money to spend this year and spent it on Rios and Peavy? Of course they have budgets. I am sure they have budgets that span the life of all existing contractual obligations. That does not mean they are all as defined as others, nor does it mean that they don't keep them fluid and flexible. These budgets also include all sorts of speculation and prediction, such as attendance, future contracts, planned price hikes, and probably even inflation. I am not an accountant, nor am I an employee of the White Sox FO, but my guess is that the team has an account that is designed to cover operating expenses, such as player payroll, staff payroll, rent, travel, etc. When KW or JR refer to their available funds, they are probably refering to this account. That doesn't mean money can't be borrowed from other sources if a situation presents itself to improve the ballclub (i.e., a star player becomes available via trade because of another team's dire financial situation, etc.). However, that also doesn't mean there is money available which has been earmarked for player payroll. Again, my guess is KW and JR decided to borrow money from other sources to acquire Peavy and Rios, whether those sources be planned future expenditures, in lieu of future captial improvements, etc.. If that is the case, no one is lying to you at all, DA. They are simply trying to make you and the rest of the fanbase happy by making some unforseen acquisitions that can theoretically improve the ballclub. However, you aren't elated about that like some other fans are. Instead, you want to roast them over the coals for it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 11:24 AM) None of the above extensions added anything to the payroll in-season. Just give me some examples that busted the current (at the time) payroll except technically Konerko, but it was after a WS and money was aplenty. It would have been hard to play the $.50 card then. How does the fact that the extensions didn't affect the payroll in-season somehow mean they were budgeted for?

Absolutely HUGE game today. We need to get Mark going a bit, and we need to take another series from these Angels. Tigers have another tough game today. A win for us coupled with another Tiger loss puts us at 4 back and really starts opening some eyes. Let's do this, Mark. This is why we pay you the big bucks.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 08:56 AM) Who have they gone out on the limb for, breaking budget to acquire in the past? And if they don't take financial risks if they can be avoided, taking on $115 million worth of contracts with no money left in the budget, would be a huge financial risk. Again, from my post: However, the organization will step outside of that mode of operation if it sees an impact player that can be acquired at a reduced price, whether that be in terms of cash or players. The organization will also step up the degree of risk it will assume if it sees an opportunity to make the postseason. As for specific players, I'm thinking many of the additions we have made in the second half of seasons over the past 5 years. Additionally, many of them we are still committed to or have recently traded. 1) Jon Garland 2) Jose Contreras 3) Mark Buehrle 4) Javy Vazquez 5) Paul Konerko 6) Jermaine Dye

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 08:31 AM) Wouldn't the same premise work for some of the bargains available last offseason? They saved $1 million on Thome, they are paying Contreras all but the minumum which is about $65k a month. There are no conspiracy theories. They just weren't being straight when they said they had no money. I don't know how obvious the pattern has to be for you to recognize what it is, especially for someone who goes on and on about being a 20 year season ticket holder. The organization does not take financial risks if they can be avoided. However, the organization will step outside of that mode of operation if it sees an impact player that can be acquired at a reduced price, whether that be in terms of cash or players. The organization will also step up the degree of risk it will assume if it sees an opportunity to make the postseason. Otherwise, the organization will operate in a fiscally responsible manner. I don't think KW means literally when he says they have no money that they have no money. It means things are tight and the budget is basically accounted for. If you want to interpret that as meaning there are no funds available, nor are there any funds available in the future, nor will there ever be, that is your prerogative, but that doesn't make Kenny a liar either.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Sep 13, 2009 -> 08:15 AM) I'm not holding it against them. You are missing the point. They said they were broke. KW even mentioned (and I know he's was tongue in cheek) playing day games the last couple months to save on the electric bill. Then they pick up over $100 million in contracts, and he mentions the extra walk up, when they were offering $9 tickets as the catalyst in freeing up some money. They know how many tickets they have sold. They knew well in advance the measely numbers they would have for the Boston series. A 15k walk-up is very rare. When KW says something about possible acquisitions, etc. most everyone agrees not to believe everything he says, there's a method to his madness. I agree with that. What I don't understand is why, if a lot of his comments are a smoke screen or simply aren't true, when he talks about his lack of funds, that is gospel. I'll go back to Forbes. I will consider it fair since KW once used Forbes as a reference with Sox finances when there was a favorable report on net income vs. player payroll ratio. According to them, the White Sox have turned over a $70 million profit the past 3 seasons, thats after they have paid the players. Again, I dont have a problem with the White Sox turning a profit, but don't tell me you spend every dollar that comes in. Maybe this year with the economy and picking up 2 huge contracts in season, something I can't ever recall them doing, it turned out not to be true, but when I got on my bandwagon, they didn't have Peavy or Rios, so despite the criticizms from the guys who pray to KW when they wake up every morning, I apparently was correct. Again, you are being incredibly naive with HOW THE TEAM's FINANCES WORK. They picked up roughly $7 million in contracts for the second half of the season. They've since ditched $2 million in contracts. Do you really find it incredible to believe that they went out and found an alternate source of funding in order to add Peavy and Rios? Or that maybe they were REALLY keeping their fingers crossed that these guys would get us over the hump and pay for themselves by getting us into the postseason? Or that they will have to account for adding this payroll this year by adding less in the first half next year? Will you admit that any of those possibilities exist, instead of your conspiracy theories?