michelangelosmonkey

QUOTE(WCSox @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) Reinsdorf is intelligent enough to know that signing a marquee player won't "win over" Chicago baseball fans. It didn't happen with Albert Belle, who appeared to be headed to the HOF back when the Sox signed him. The only way to "win over" fans from the Cubs, and the only way for the Cubs to increase their fan base, is to WIN. And since the Cubs can't win, and the Sox have very recently, it's not like the Sox have their back against the wall in terms of fan support. The only way that JR and his board would ever sign A-Rod would be if A-Rod/Boras agreed to several "out" clauses in the contract (salary ranking, diminished skills, etc.) so that he could dump the remaining $200+ million on some other owner if the A-Rod experiment went awry. And since dedicating 1/3 of one's payroll to one player doesn't work in baseball, I seriously doubt that A-Rod would be in Chicago for more than a few years. And, most importantly, paying A-Rod an obscene amount of money wouldn't help the Sox win. And I really think that the number of A-Rod jerseys being sold is somewhat exaggerated. While A-Rod may be a "star", he's not exactly embraced by fans in the same way that Jordan was. A-Rod is basically seen as a great regular-season player who doesn't get it done in the playoffs and who has a somewhat contrived personality. He's not perceived as a winner and he's not going to be the Derek Jeter of Chicago. It didn't happen with Albert Belle because he came across as SUCH a jerk. Then he got hurt and they soon cut bait on him. I wouldn't so quickly denigrate the idea of winning the city. A-Rod keeps the Sox competitive during the years when the Trib is selling the Cubs...this is a unique time when WGN no longer will have a vested interest in picking Cubs over Sox. You look back at attendence history and Chicago has not historically been a Cubs town. It became a Cubs town when the #1 TV station and #1 Newspaper owned them. If the Sox can leverage WS + signing AROD plus a couple more play off runs? Don't discount the little kids in the suburbs growing up as Sox fans. That's a LOT of customers 20 years down the road.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Oct 19, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) The problem with that from a business standpoint, is that you aren't getting the meat of the return on investment within 3 years. The most money that Arod will produce for your team will come in years 5+ when he's approaching multiple records. From a pure baseball production standpoint, a 3 year deal makes the most sense, but to JR that's probably not the case. It has probably crossed JR's mind that he brought the greatest basketball player to ever live to Chicago, and now he has the chance to bring in and keep probably the greatest baseball player to ever live to Chicago. Reinsdorf would be a god in this city. Whether it all makes sense to us is a different story, but there are issues past the bottom line on a signing like this one. I'm definitely not saying it will happen, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. I think people forget that just a little over 10 years ago Reinsdorf...after complaining loudly for years about baseball salaries...made Albert Belle the highest paid player in baseball. People's jaws dropped at the time. But we need to remember that Reinsdorf is a smart businessman. The quest for Arod would be in an attempt to win the city of Chicago. This is a battle fought over decades...last off season the Cubs spent $300 million to get themselves a 3 and out in the playoffs...and who would bet on them for next year. If Reinsdorf spends $300 million on Arod and Rowand...trades Garland for prospects?? The city would be ABUZZ. When the Cubs get sold...WGN comes with hat and wallet in hand to pay for Sox TV. Young suburban baseball fans start wearing AROD jersies. It's really a great plan. To win Chicago it could be argued that Arod is more valuable to the Sox than any team in baseball.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 11:05 PM) Here's my brand of "logic and reason": With the top pick you can take whoever you want, no limitations at all. With the #9 pick you can take anyone you want except the 8 players who were drafted before your turn to choose. So with the top pick you have unlimited flexibility but with any pick after that you're limited in your choices more and more. IMO having greater flexibility in the selection of talent is an outstanding card to hold. Being handcuffed is not fun. And my friend you fight a good fight...outside of the exasperation. The flaw in your reasoning though is...assuming your #1 choice is the best choice. So they bring out the dessert tray after dinner and show you the piece of cake, the piece of pie and the ice cream. One of them is great the other two are crap. Not even the waiter knows which one is going to be great...even if you bribe him. Even if the agent for the Cake is Scott Boras. Chosing first, second or third doesn't affect your odds of getting the good dessert. It makes you FEEL like you are in control. But it doesn't really improve your odds. Hell the great dessert might just be the fruitcake being picked in the 17th round. So just stop worrying about how good the dessert is going to be and have enjoy the dinner rolls. (By the way...it was the pie).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:50 PM) I figured it out. You're an instant gratification sort of guy, if you're not getting the payoff RIGHT NOW you don't want it at all. I bet if I offered you a choice: 1.) you get 20 bucks right now or 2.) I'll give you $120 in June of next year you'd take the 20 now. Since the draft is 8 months away and any draft pick would take at least 2 years to develop in the minors you just don't want to think about it, you'd rather have the payoff of a win during a few meaningless games over the stretch run of a terrible baseball season even though a few losses RIGHT NOW could pay off 3 years from now. And when I talk about the boring aspect of these debates I'm mainly bothered by the constant listing of past draft picks, it gets old. We've all seen the names and we don't f***ing care. Just because you throw the names Bullington, Bush, Smoltz and Buehrle out there ever 30 minutes doesn't mean anyone's opinion is going to change. Just so I understand...it's evidence that bothers you? Facts are boring?

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:40 PM) It never fails. A new day, a new game thread, exact same arguments, exact same points being made on both sides and exact same people standing on each side of the issue. Dear god this is getting old and oh so boring. Logic and reason always standing by ready to do battle against voodoo and witchcraft.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 10:31 PM) Yep, since talk show hosts are always the smartest people. Once again, who would you rather have the chance to draft, Cole Hamels or Royce Ring? I'll agree on the idiocy of sports talk guys...but come on...you just can't play that Cole Hamels vs Royce Ring game. In 2002 draft Bryan Bullington, Christopher Gruler, Adam Lowen, and Clint Everts went before Prince Fielder. Every single draft you can do great retrospectively. But with those 1500 names sitting on your board? NO ONE KNOWS.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 09:55 PM) Couldn't the first several options happen whether or not the White Sox win? And I don't believe psychological positives matter much. At this point in the season, they're probably dead and looking forward to the offseason. Next season is completely different. If Williams undergoes major roster changes, they'll be new life injected into the club regardless of how 2007 concludes. Here's a concept you fail to understand -- considering our draft history, the Whtie Sox need EVERY benefit possible within the draft. You suggest there's no evidence you're likely to hit gold with a #1 pick, yet, when I browse through our recent draft history it doesn't seem we hit gold with anything. Why not cheer for the possibility of selecting high, and perhaps, receiving our Ken Griffey Junior, BJ Uption, Joe Mauer, Alex Rodriguez? There's going to be quite the lull between our first and second round pick. We don't exactly have the compensation round to fall back upon. I'm not opposed to the White Sox leading every game 6-0 going into the eight inning and then have Mike Meyers give up 7 runs and they lose. But sadly...if Gavin and Garland and Contreas pitch well...Fields and Richar and Owens look good...Sox will probably win enough games to keep from having #1 overall pick. As for me and my lack of understanding...as I have said...there IS evidence that top ten picks are more likely to be great players than later first round picks. The White Sox haven't picked in the top ten in 17 years. But even in the top 10 the odds are small. It's not a failure of any particular organization...it's just random. The Sox need to improve in all areas of player development. 1 pick is not that important...or so says Albert Pujols 13th round, Jim Thome 13th Round, Jake Peavey 15th round, John Smoltz--undrafted. So why not just cheer to win? Go Sox Go.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 19, 2007 -> 09:00 PM) No, those certain posters still wont budge from their stance winning meaningless September games (the previos season) was better than losing for the purpose of gaining draft position. We'll have to wait until those drafted ahead are producing in the majors for anyone to acknowledge their mistakes. And even then, I'm sure they'll just shrug their shoulders and say something such as "it is what it is." Here's one prevailing question the 'winning' crowd has yet to answer -- what's the most beneficial part of winning out the remainder of the season? Name me ONE legitimate benefit. I could give you one benefit to losing out the remainder of the year -- having the opportunity to draft a HOF calibur player at #1. Yes, that player may still be available wherever we select; but they'd also be there at #1. As I see it, there's much more substance to our argument than the constrasting view held by Greg and the Gang. Atleast we're facing Santana on Friday. Although would it shock anyone if the White Sox mounted their highest offensive output, post-changeup era, against him? * Increasing Contreas Trade value. * Increasing Garland trade value * Gavin floyd getting confidence * Positive results from Richar, Fields, Owens and young relief pitchers. * Psychological positives. * Not having to read headlines all off season like "From first to worst in two seasons", "From World Series to worst overall in two seasons." From Penthouse to outhouse". All seem WAY better than the SLIM advantage #1 overall pick brings. Since 1965 there are THREE #1 overalls with OPS above .900. Why is this complicated? There are 1500 amateur players taken...with #1 you have a choice of the top 1500. With #4 you have a choice of the top 1496. Virtually zero evidence you are more likely to hit gold with #1 over #2 or #3 or #4. There is some evidence of top 10...but within top ten?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 03:05 PM) Just how is that any different from the 3rd or 9th overall selection? If a guy is drafted in the first round, they are going to want to see how he performs and they will give him a shot. In theory, if a guy is drafted in the 1st round, he's one of the best 2% of players taken within that calendar year; you are going to do everything in your power to get that player in the majors because of his talent level. So in that regard, I don't believe the #1 overall pick is any different than the 2nd, 5th, 10th, 17th, 23rd, or 30th. You apparently do not appreciate the value of serviceable, nor do you appreciate longevity. I think #1 is different because you have no defense. If you have the #9 pick you can always tell fans and management...well we WANTED Jeter...but he was already taken. I think there's more pressure on organizations with #1 overall. So they groom a path for him. If Brian Anderson was #1 overall pick...the Sox would have had him in CF this year...Ozzie's doghouse or not. Still you are right for slamming me for my view on "serviceable". Having someone like Johnny Peralta or AJ Pierzinski (ie: .750 OPS guys) for 10 years is part of building a team.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 02:06 AM) This is interesting stuff. I'd be interested to know if there were more than 3 .900 OPS guys taken at other spots in the draft. I posted this in another thread last week, but may as well mention again as it's germane here. I looked at position players taken in the top 10 picks from 1977 to 2003. At the various slots, it ranged from 10 to 18 position players taken over that span. I looked solely at whether or not a player reached 3000 at bats in his career, and with younger players like Delmon Young, Nick Markakis, etc, I used my judgement and gave those players the benefit of the doubt that they'd reach 3000 (true, they might get injured, but whatever). Of those 10 draft slots, in 7 of them, the percentage of players that DID NOT reach 3000 at bats in their career was 50% - 70%. The #2 and #3 picks were both at 41% NOT reaching 3000 at bats. The number 1 pick however had just 11% not reaching at least 3000 at bats. Just 2 out of 18, and none since Shawn Abner was taken in 1984. Perhaps the guys who become superstars are randomly distributed among the top half of the first round of the draft. I don't know. There have certainly been a lot fewer complete busts at #1. There clearly has been a much higher percentage of guys who, even if they don't become superstars, manage to have a career of at very least 5 years, which is really quite rare among all of the players drafted. While not a superstar, a guy like Phil Nevin who manages to get 4000 plus at bats with an .815 OPS is actually very rare. My only quibble is...if you get the #1 pick in the draft you don't want a guy that gets 3000 at bats. I think an organization that picks #1 overall will do everything to ensure that guy gets at bats. Phil Nevin was a good player. But you are taking near the top of all the #1's. And they bipassed Derek Jeter. Erstad, Jeff King, Bj Surhoff, Shawn Dunston, Bill Almon....all reached your 3,000 at bats and none of them was anything but 'servicable'. I think the goal in drafting is to acquire a star. A top 50 player in baseball...I just googled "top 50 players in baseball" and the first thing was a Sporting News article from 2003. Now granted this is open to bias in who those players are...but the list isn't bad, and its not MY bias. Anyway I figured any year should be roughly the same...so here is how those 50 top players in baseball entered the game: Undrafted: 13...this is the great unfairness in baseball vs football. Smart organizations can get players like Ichiro, Vlad Guerrero, Pedro Martinez, Carlo Delgado...without effecting draft...and for the most part without paying a ton. This is one area the White Sox need to get better...and it appears they are trying hard. Draft round 10-50: 6 players. That's 12% wild luck. draft round 3-9: 7 players. draft round 2: 4 players draft round 1: 20. Actually this is more like football than I thought. 40% of the best players come from the first round. If you want a star you need to get him in the first round. And to break that down: pick 1: 2 pick 2: 2 pick 4: 2 Pick 5: 1 pick 6: 3 Top ten: 13 And fully 26% of all stars come from the top ten picks. But 1 over 2? 2 over 4? Brief conclusion...and again, one year, one list...but it seems sound. Drafting in the first round: important. Top ten pick: important. But inside the top ten...not much difference. So Go Sox Go. Loved Garland pitching well last night.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) And the White Sox had the 5th pick. I can understand why some here want the Sox to lose, but I still want victories. This draft pick probably won't be able to really help for a least a couple of years, maybe more. Another month of constant losing is another month where the core of the team is going to forget how to win. Losing breeds more losing. Yeah but when you can get a high school catcher of Kurt Brown's potential...

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) Wait, Joe Mauer isn't a star? Apparently great defensive catchers with career .394 OBPs are growing on trees these days... First of all we have to set the "Star" level someplace. .900 OPS seems like a nice dividing line. And Mauer's now had three full seasons in the majors...with OPS of .783, .936 and .807. And injured a lot. Last year he was a Star. The other two years...good. Using your definition...why is Aaron Rowand not a star. And by the way...Mike Piazza...career .924 OPS. 62nd round.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) I cant remember what thread it was in, but someone posted that the #1 pick is something like 30 percent more effective for selecting an impact MLB player that the 2nd pick. I wish I could find that post. Well I'm not sure what the meaning of 30% is. Its not like there's a million data points. 3 hitters over .900 OPS in the first pick in the 40 years of the draft. 0 in the second pick. But in the second pick you have JR richards, Mark Mulder, Bill Gullikson and Josh Beckett with more than 20 wins than loses...versus 0 in the first pick. So we can save conclusively #2 picks are better pitchers and #1 better hitters??? The draft is a crap shoot...#1 pick, #2 pick, #500 pick. Is Sheffield, Bonds, Jeter worse than Jones, A-rod, Junior? The #6 guys.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) It's pretty simple really, the #1>#2-#500 and there's no getting around it. The #1 pick is the best pick because you can take who ever you want, anyone, with the #2 pick you're limited. There's one less player you can take, with the 8th pick you're even more limited. It's not even about how often the #1 pick is effective, it's really as simple as taking the player believed to be the most talented player in the draft. He's yours with the #1 pick but may not be there when you pick at #2. But this says losing is completely benign. There's 23 games left. 4+ starts per starter. Suppose Jose Contreas goes 4-0. Is that meaningless? Supposed Floyd goes 4-0...meaningless? Richar gets hot, or Josh Fields hits 6 more homers. If the team goes 19-4 with a handful of good things happening...that's better than going 4-19...irrespective of draft pick. I wouldn't be playing Erstad over Owens if he gives us a better chance to win...because what's the point of that. And I wouldn't root for Richar and Fields and Owens and Floyd and Contreas to suck...because given the choices I'd rather have hope. Now if you can create a scenario where we lose every game with Meyers giving up 5 runs in the 8th and Uribe committing 5 errors. Fine. But to damn the team for a slightly better chance at hitting on a star is just wrong.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) Hell, just in a 4 year span the #1 overall pick produced possibly the greatest offensive 3B the game has ever seen (Jones does have the highest OPS for a 3B , though I'm sure Schmidt would get the majority of the votes) and quite possibly the best player to every play the game. My point is you can't cherry pick. Chipper Jones...superstar. Arod...superstar. Junior...Superstar. Three .900 OPS guys in 40 years. Then some guys. Sure 3 is good...but its no sure thing.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:07 PM) I barely watched either game so I didn't really have any feelings either way but I suppose the loss made me feel better than the win since the loss can only help this team in the long run and the win will do absolutely nothing. Having the #1 pick would allow for the Sox to take their guy, they can draft the player who they feel is the absolute best player in the draft. If there's someone that a scout or KW has fallen in love with and they think he's the balls then they can take him, no one can stop them. Picking up an extra meanings 7 wins at the end of a miserable season and pushing the draft pick back to #8 would only limit the White Sox's draft flexibility. Flexibility can only be a good thing IMO. I couldn't care less about past top 3-5 picks, the Sox having the ability to take their guy, someone who people feel is the most talented player in the draft sounds pretty damn good to me. I've already surrendured on this...as I pointed out earlier...I wasn't watching very closely either...and the Sox are real close to the #1 overall pick because they need not be abysmal this year. 95 losses versus 105 losses...THIS year. But to get a whiff at #1 overall and it means losing 105? I don't ever want that because I think its still not a sure thing. Though yes, MORE of a sure thing.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) Josh Hamilton is one of the front runners for NL ROY. I would say he was a good, but very sidetracked pick. Delmon Young is looking to be a pretty good player, and I would gladly take a player like him. Most importantly, which you missed in your post, is that the #1 pick is much more frequently an impact player over the rest of the top 5 and top 10 picks. Josh Hamilton has had a very good 282 at bats. At 22, playing shortstop, Juan Uribe in 273 at bats had an .850 OPS. It's way too early to make a judgement on Hamilton...at 26. It would be fun to have Delmon Young in the system. But Chris Young is every bit as intriguing a CF prospect and he was drafted in the 15th round. And It's not MUCH more frequently...it's more frequently. And you'd probably be better off trading #1 overall pick for a teams 10-30th rounds.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 03:44 PM) What's the downside to losing? On Saturday the Sox lost 7-0. On Sunday they won 8-0. Tell me you didn't feel better? And the number of superstars at, say #5 since 1965...Mark Teixeira, JD Drew, Vernon Wells, Jack McDowell, Dwight Gooden, Dale Murphy. Or #6...Rocco Baldelli, Derek Jeter, Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Andy Van Slyke...is not wildly worse than the group at #1 over all. Winning makes me feel good and I think losing doesn't particularly ensure anything. In the NFL being worst ensures you the best Quarterback in the draft (Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick in the last ten years) and an easier schedule.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Well. How many of those afformentioned picks were the #1 pick? Joe mauer was. So if we keep losing we get OUR Joe mauer. How about this list instead: #1 draft picks 1990 Chipper jones 1991 brien taylor 1992 Phil Nevin 1993 A-Rod 1994 Paul Wilson 1995 Darin Erstad 1996 Kris Benson 1997 Matt Anderson 1998 Pat Burrell 1999 Josh Hamilton 2000 Adrian Gonzalez 2001 Joe Mauer 2002 Bryan Bullington 2003 Delmon Young 2004 Matt Bush 2005 Justin Upton 2006 Luke hochevar 2007 David price I would say getting the number 1 pick greatly increases your chances of drafting an impact player moreso than any other position in the draft. As you point it out to me...it HAS been kind of a freakish year. Looks like 95 losses might get you the number one pick...when most years you need more like 105 loses. So yeah dumping may make sense in this year. Still...from your list of number ones overall you have 3 stars out of 12. PLus a couple of good players. I'd put post 2002 in the "unproven" box. Then you have: Joe Mauer career OPS .854 Adrian Gonzalez career OPS .830 Josh Hamilton--nothing yet Pat Bureel: career .848 Matt Anderson 15-7 5.2 ERA Kris Benson 68-73 4.4 ERA Darin Erstad--grinderstad...753 career ops Paul Wilson 40-58 4.86ERA Arod...superstar Phil Nevin career .815 OPS Brien Tayler--no appearance. Chipper Jones Star Go back to every #1 overall pick since 1965 and there are only THREE with career OPS over .900...Ken Griffey Jr, Arod and Chipper. And not a single pitcher with +20 wins over losses in his career...only a couple with 150 victories...maybe the best Andy Benes? Floyd Bannister? Seems like about once a decade you get a dream player. Seems just as likely to get him at #7 like Frank Thomas or, say Jake Peavey in the 15th round.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Use just the 90s so you don't have to bring up Joe Mauer. I like it. A franchise catcher is something I'd absolutely love to have. Ironically enough, he was the #1 pick. Come on. I used a ten year period. If you want to use an eleven year period...fine. They got Joe Mauer. So they were so bad that they drafted top ten for 8 of 11 years and added Joe Mauer with those high picks. I don't WANT to be horrible for 8 years so I can add one very good player. My point was, and remains if you add Joe Mauer, top 10 picks in the ML draft assure nothing. And winning meaningless games still feels good.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 09:37 AM) From my point of view, it's real simple....if we had lost one more game in 2002, we would have had the OPPORTUNITY to select Cole Hamels. Instead, the Phillies had a pick one spot higher, and they could take him, and we took Royce Ring. Winning is always a good thing. Rooting to lose so we move up a spot because we're terrible just has not proven to be a great stategy (in baseball). Everyone loves the Twins here...and the twins were horrible in the 90's and here's there top ten drafting: Year Overall pick PLayer 1991 3 David Mccarty 1994 8 Todd Walker 1996 2 Travis Lee 1997 9 Michael Cuddyer 1998 6 Ryan Mills 1999 5 BJ Garbe 2000 2 Adam Johnson That's 7 top ten picks in ten years...and the best is Cuddyer who's a RF with a career .790 OPS? It's SO unknowable...that I would rather have the brief happiness and hope of going into the off season with a 18-6 last 24.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) Isn't it odd how something that made Harry lovable is now reviled when Hawk says "GET UP! STRETCH!!" for warning track flyballs? Not saying that you personally said that (I don't know your feelings on Hawk), but many people do seem to hate when he says that. I love Hawk. But I think he needs a good partner. I really liked when it was he and Paciorek...they were goofy. He and DJ was bad. Same with Singleton...because I think he bullies them. I think he and Steve Stone could be great. Still, there is a difference between being a kid and listening and being a man. Not sure if it was cub hatred...but by the time Harry went to the Cubs I was tired of his shtick. He seemed drunken buffoon by the end...though I suspect if you asked a Cubs fan that was 10 at the time they loved Harry like I did when I was ten.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) Those 78, 79 and 80 teams were brutal, but Harry and Jimmy kept fan interest high. I never had so much "fun at the old ball park" as I did in those days. Until 05 of course. There were no rumors about St. Petersburg or Arizona. The AL did have the Sox ticketed to Seattle after the 75 season, and they surely would have moved there had not Veeck come to the rescue at the last possible moment. In 79 or 80 there were rumors that Veeck would sell to Marvin Davis who would then move the team to Denver. When it initially looked like Edward DeBartolo Sr. would get the club for the 81 season, there were brief rumors he wanted to move the team to New Orleans. I remember Harry Caray's interview with him in early 81 when he expressed enthusiasm about building a winner in Chicago. He did bring championships to the 49ers and the first Stanley Cup in Pittsburgh. The St. Petersburg thing didn't come up until the mid and late 80s. I never remember rumors about Arizona, and I don't think that was even a possibility of a team there until Colangelo put his group together in the mid and late 90s. The period from 1968-1980 produced only two winning seasons, but lots of fan interest, (if not always great attendance) and a carnival atmosphere at old Comiskey from 72 on. Today we're looking at an uncertain future at best, and we have a dreadful radio team, and a not so hot pair in the TV booth. Man...I did love Harry...as a kid every fly ball was to the warning track. And I also remember old Comisky with half the seats being obstructed view...still there was something romantic about it. But while you may have been having fun...I just never had any sense of hope that the team would be much better than last place. Bill Veeck couldn't afford anything. We signed no free agents and lost many. Attendance was crappy. From 75 to 80 they finished 5th, 6th, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th. Even the famed south side hitmen team of 77 (the third place finsh) finished a dozen games out. That 79 team Chet Lemon led the team with 17 homers. The 80 team it was Wayne Nordhagen with 15. And for a decade the Sox were the team everyone mentioned when talk was about a team moving.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 12:11 AM) Great post. I cannot stand this nonsense about the Bartolo Colon deal and the Aj Pierzynski deal. Go to other team's message boards, and on EVERY one of them you will find their fans demanding their GM make a deal similar to those two. If the fans know it, you don't think the GM's recognize that? If anything, those two deals and the attention they have continually received has made it far less likely that another will occur. No GM wants to make a deal like that and get fleeced. And if we haven't seen the evidence of that in the last two years, I don't know what we've seen. As for Liriano, the key to his return is that the very pitch that made him so dominant is the same that caused his injury. That slider creates enormous stress on his elbow and obviously caused him to miss this entire season. When he returns, will he attempt to throw it? Will he throw a variation of it? Will he reinjure his arm again and again and again like Kerry Wood? To say he can return to duplicate or even at all closely replicate his 06' success is extraordinarily speculative at the very least. In terms of MichaelAngelosMonkey, he was not trying to claim that the White Sox have not been as lucky as any other team. What he was claiming is that you cannot praise the Twin's success as a skill, and at the same time chalk up all the White Sox' success as luck. Both have received plenty of luck within the last several years. What the Twins have done well over the past several years is put together amazing bullpens and tailor their ballclub to the Humphreydome. They have not produced an amazing number of solid homegrown position players, their success developing starting pitchers has been overstated, and they have continually been exposed in the postseason. Certainly their sustained success in this decade has been admirable, but basically, if things hold true this season, they will have won 1 postseason series while having the best starting pitcher in baseball and one of the best bullpens in baseball for the last 4-5 years. It's great and all that they have won division titles with a lower payroll, but let's not confuse their run with the Oakland A's of the early seventies. I think it's fairly clear that there are several issues within the White Sox organization which need to be addressed. One is certainly international scouting. Another is their refusal to wholeheartedly consider players represented by Scott Boras. Another is their philosophy of drafting low-risk pitchers. However, anyone who has watched baseball for any sustained period of time realizes how quickly things can change, especially when there is a little money that can be spent. Certainly this organization does some things better than they do others; however, I must say I have faith in their overall ability to position this team in a favorable spot for the next several years, despite how putrid the major league team has looked throughout this season. Thanks for the support, iamshack. I think the one thing we can all agree on is we are White Sox fans and want the team better. I fully support the position that our farm system has been disappointing. I remember in 2000 when we were voted farm system of the year by BA. And who came out of that mix? In fact here's a decade worth of our picks that made some impact in the majors...and I don't include long relievers or back up infielders. A team gets FIFTY picks a year and if you figure a team needs 20 real good players to compete...and a players career is five years. Well you ought to be adding four real good players a year: 1992: Crap 1993: PLacido Polanco 1994: ERic Gagne 1995: crap 1996: Crede/Chad Bradford 1997: Jeff Weaver 1998: Kip Wells, Aaron Rowand, Nate Robertson, Josh Fogg, Mark Buehrle 1999: crap 2000: crap 2001: Chris Young There's no all star team in THAT mix. 500 picks and only Buehrle, Rowand and Crede made their impact with the Sox. But let's look at a team everyone said was a super drafting team...the Expos: 92: Jose Vidro 93: Brad Fulmer 94: Geoff Blum 95: Michael Barret 96: Milton Bradly 97-crap 98-Brad Wilkerson 99--Brandon Phillips 00--Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, Jason Bay 01--crap 02--crap That's a lot closer to an allstar team...but it's only 10 players. And the Yankees who can afford the best of everything: 92: Derek Jeter 93: Chad Moeller 95: Mike Lowell, Casey Blake 96: Eric Milton, Nick Johnson 97: Mark Prior. So...that basically NOTHING since 1992. And the Twins? 92-nothing 93: Torri Hunter, Jason Varitek, Javier Valentin, Alex Cora, Danny Kolb 94: Todd Walker, AJ, David Dellucci, Corey Koskie 95: Mark Redmon, Doug Mientkiewitz 96: Travis Lee, Jacques Jones, Chad Moller, Mike Lamb, Josh bard 97: Michael Cuddyer, Matt Lecroy, Nick Punto 98:crap 99:Morneau 00: crap 01: Mauer 02: Crap The twins did something right in the mid 90's. That's 19 pretty good major leaguers in a 5 year span. That's your core of grinderstads. But then what happened? It's clear you need to concurrently take many paths to build a championship team. Drafting better is important...but it's not the only thing. One could certainly argue that the sole pick of Jeter has served the yankees as well as all the Expos draft picks. So the Sox need to be smart developing Latin American talent. Going after Japanese players. Trading. Free agent bargains (Dye) and big time free agents. Kenny's approach brought one world series championship. Let's see if he's smart enough to cobble together another.

Man you young-uns! This year doesn't even begin to measure the pain of the late 70's. There was a bit of a high with the hitmen of 77...but Veeck was trying to run the team on a shoestring...you'd check the attendance figures before the score. One of those seasons his wife designed the uniforms. Disco demolition. The team was a national laughing stock. I'd say 78 or 79...both last place finishes...one year they let Richie Zisk and Oscar Gamble go because they couldn't afford them. The next they let Steve Stone and Wilbur Wood go. They traded fan favorite Eric Soderholm to get Ed Farmer...thus beginning the thread that would make him our broadcaster. And everyday in the Trib the story was "Will Sox move to St. Petersburg" "Will Sox move to Arizona". A horrible team. horrible talent. And the fear that I would forever after lose my team. Come on...WS, 90 win season, disappointing season. We've got a lot of talent and some prospects in the minors and Kenny Williams who could do anything in the off season.