gatnom

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jul 28, 2011 -> 10:46 PM) So, the Sox are going to make money when they quit mid-season, piss off the fan base again, and draw 12,000 per game for the next couple of years? Or were you not paying attention in 1998 and 1999? I was only 7 or 8 at the time, but from hearing about it from some posters, it sounds like there was a much bigger picture to them drawing 12,000 than just the one trade. Failing to do much in the playoffs does more to harm this organization than "White Flag Part 2."

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jul 28, 2011 -> 10:45 PM) They'll have an even more difficult time being a profitable organization when they throw the 2011 season and they're draw 12,000 fans per game for the next three years. "Rebuilding on the fly" is fine from November through March. You don't do it mid-season when you have a very legit shot at a division title. Making the playoffs does nothing to guarantee that they don't "draw 12,000 fans," which is complete hyperbole and you know it, because they need a deep playoff run to keep this team in place for the next season. Otherwise, they're blowing it up regardless, and you might as well do it while you can apparently swindle the Phillies or Braves. It's a probability thing, and the way this team has played doesn't exactly make it seem likely that they will do much in the playoffs should they reach them.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jul 28, 2011 -> 10:42 PM) Therin lies the problem. If you think the GM even when given more money to spend cannot improve the team or at the very least are quite skeptical, shouldn't someone else be the GM? Probably, but that's not exactly how the White Sox operate...

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jul 28, 2011 -> 10:41 PM) What don't you guys understand about playing to win? When you've invested almost $130M in a team, you're only 3 games out with two full months left to play, and the rest of the division sucks, you don't put your tail between your legs and quit on the season because a few of your big-money players have been underachieving so far. What don't you understand about not making money?

QUOTE (WCSox @ Jul 28, 2011 -> 10:19 PM) Was Kenny selling veteran starters for middle relievers and prospects back then? This is true, although the '97 Indians weren't really all that great in the regular season either. Their rotation was bad (gave up 815 runs) and was anchored by injury-prone dinosaurs like Orel Herscheiser and Charlie Nagy. They caught lightning in a bottle with Jaret Wright and Chad Ogea in the playoffs and came within one inning of winning the WS. Just goes to show that you don't need a bulletproof team to win in the playoffs. The problem is that it was stated at the beginning of this season that if the White Sox didn't win to create a big interest in the fan base, they would have a hard time being a profitable organization. They aren't going to want to pay for these big names if the fans don't want to. And, if KW can rebuild on the fly while still remaining competitive this year instead of being slightly more competitive and imploding as an organization in the off season, I'm all for it. Now, if they're willing to keep spending to keep "filling" in our holes, I'm good with them staying pat right now too, but I just can't see us continually raising our payroll without actually generating much in the way of results.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 08:51 PM) Or a completely different situation entirely. Tougher hitters, more pressure, etc. I think it's important to note that Edwin Jackson has pitched as many games under pressure as Hudson has. More to the point, though, I don't really understand how Edwin is going to mysteriously turn into a dominant pitcher just because it's the postseason. If he gets hot at the right time, sure, he could carry this pitching staff, but I believe you can say that about just about any of our starters right now. I mean, as noted above, we don't even know if he responds well to pressure or not yet, so it seems a little early to say just having him pitch in the postseason is going to be worth Hudson let alone both him and Holmberg.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jul 17, 2011 -> 11:59 AM) You have the give credit to guys like Contreras and El Duque and Edwin for limiting their hits allowed if you're going to be on them all the time for walking guys. And while you hate to give guys free passes, last time I checked free passes are limited to one base and do not all a runner to advance from 1st to 3rd or score from 2nd. Edwin has a WHIP of 1.42 this year. Mark had a 1.40 WHIP last year. And while Mark may pitch quick games and keep his defense a bit more on their toes, you'd never hear Hawk lament about the hits Mark gave up last year in a similar fashion as he'll complain about Edwin's walks. Again, yes, it can be frustrating for a viewer, but you can't lose sight of the bigger picture. Edwin has struggled for much of the second half with command issues, which has led to his overall struggles; but get him on track going into the postseason, and he's as dangerous as any pitcher we have. That is where giving up Dan Hudson might finally prove worth it. It sounds to me like you're making more of an argument as to why Buehrle isn't great than as to why Jackson is. Also, Your last statement goes both ways, shack. He is just as likely to have his dominating stuff as he is to throw 100 pitches by the 5th inning.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 07:41 AM) Yeah, to get to that point, the Hawks suffered through what, probably 15 of the worst years imaginable for fans of a sports franchise? I can't remember which, but I'm pretty sure some publication labeled them as the worst franchise in professional sports. I'm generally not a fan of comparing teams across sports, though. It's just apples and oranges.

I don't remember his tweets being all that interesting for the brief period of time I somewhat paid attention to them. I think I remember something about a barbecue with Mark Teahen?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Jul 14, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) Define hard sell. If you're proposing a full rebuild, then I think that's a huge mistake. I'm down for a couple moves, such as trading Jackson and Quentin, but I don't think we're that far off from competing next year. I think anything beyond a few tweaks is a huge mistake. What team should we be scared of in 2012? Not saying we'll be the favorite, but I don't see any team in the division who's going to be dominant. I still think you try to make one more run at it in 2012 before you even consider rebuilding. The problem is as it was last season: we are going to have a good number of holes without much money or prospects to fill them. Unfortunately, the answer this season cannot be to increase the payroll by 25% hoping that a good team will bring in additional revenue.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 01:52 PM) And I don't think he's 'condescending.' It's not like he goes on there and acts all high and mighty. I think he presents both sides while, of course, sticking to his stance as it being the right one. I heard a long dissertation on Pierre during a rain delay with the beat writer and it presented both sides. I think he's right about Dunn to a certain extent. You do have to pretend he's the old Dunn to a certain extent, though I would like to get his take on at least dropping Dunn to seventh in the order. What Rongey are you reading on here?

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 12, 2011 -> 05:15 PM) Leadoff men only have guys on base in 36-37% of their plate apperances. Most of that comes from leading off the game (20% of your PAs to begin with), but having a power hitter there kind of wastes his ability to drive in runs with that power. Regardless, being able to actually put yourself into position to score with one swing is never a bad thing, even if it's in the form of a solo home run.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 10, 2011 -> 10:28 AM) You obviously haven't monitored his career since he left here. He sucks. CF has still been a black hole for us since 2006, though.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jul 7, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) Pierre isn't the worst player in baseball. He isn't even the worst player on the Sox. By that logic, David Ortiz would have been cut by the Red Sox a long time ago (he had 2 straight years of having terrible starts, IIRC). I only said that he was, for a period of time, the worst everyday player in baseball. My point was that by sticking with him he may have done more damage than Pierre is worth, and he therefore does not necessarily deserve any credit.

QUOTE (Greg Hibbard @ Jul 7, 2011 -> 11:47 AM) Like I've said in other threads, if Pierre continues to trend back towards his norm, Ozzie deserves all the credit here. He'll never get it from most people. Because his job is to win games, not to stick with the worst player in baseball until he's just mediocre enough to not have negative value.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 30, 2011 -> 08:01 AM) Morel is doing at this level what he's done at other levels. He started real bad at the plate, has been improving since with the average, and then adds a little power later. If you want him to develop, then let him keep developing. If you didn't want to wait, and wanted a guy who hit .280 off the bat with power, and with Morel's defense, well... how many of those do you think there are waiting around the minor leagues? Have some patience, he's getting better, which can't be said of some others on this team. There's a difference between saying he's developing and saying he's been doing exactly what he should be doing. I agree that he needs to be given more time before we need to start thinking about him being a bust, but no amount of cherry picking stats is going to make a case that Morel has been good or even "doing what he should be doing."

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jun 26, 2011 -> 07:24 PM) Jake Peavy didn't reveal himself as a total china doll until after he came to our side. There was nothing in his history with the Padres to suggest that he was more fragile than...well, something that's really fragile. And the Alex Rios acquisition looked brilliant last year. It's not KW's fault the guy stunk to start this year. Jackson might have been a dumb call, but the jury's still out on what Hudson's going to amount to. Our scouts were never all that convinced, IIRC. And how about all the players he acquired that have really panned out for us? Floyd, Danks, Crain, Thornton, Humber, AJ, Alexei, Quentin...and that's just this year. I guess you can blame him for not strong-arming Ozzie into benching Dunn, but I would say that's more Ozzie's fault than his. Ozzie needs to have some sense and bench someone who's struggling that bad. KW shouldn't have to intrude on Ozzie's job description and handle his business for him. That being said, I will respect KW even more when he just fires Ozzie outright and hires someone who will do the job correctly. I understand what you're saying, but KW was the one who took on these gambles. It's like signing a free agent to a lucrative contract; injuries and poor performance are a definite possibility. He acquired Peavy while injured, and Peavy has more or less stayed injured for that duration. Rios has been terrible for the majority of the time he's been here. The fact of the matter is that KW has been in a massive, massive slump over the past three years, and that is part of the reason we are not in the greatest shape at the moment (though definitely still in it). What was the last trade KW actually won? Quentin for Carter? Now obviously the jury is still out on a couple of the trades since then, but the Swisher, Jackson, Teahen, and Pierre trades have all been losses while the Peavy and Rios deals continue to look poor.

QUOTE (FlySox87 @ Jun 26, 2011 -> 11:50 AM) Personally, I hate the idea of trading proven stars for unproven prospects. Konerko's got ten plus years (minus a few miserable years mixed in) of showing what he can do in the major leagues. But what do these guys you speak of, like Freeman, Minor and Montero have? Good scouting reports? Potential? I hate that word. I'm really just skeptical of prospects in general. Look at all the can't miss prospects we've had over the years: Rauch, Ring, Borchard, Malone, Honel, Anderson, etc. And so far, Beckham and Sale aren't exactly looking like All-Stars. So I think my mistrust of unproven talent is reasonable. Also, how can anyone blame this team's failures so far on Kenny? He built a good team on paper, that's simply sucked on the field. As far as I'm concerned, blame for our current record lies with Ozzie first and foremost, and then trickles down to guys like Dunn, Pierre, Beckham etc. Kenny had nothing to do with this garbage. Just my two cents, anyway. I don't put as much blame on KW as I do Ozzie for how the team has performed thus far, but to say he had nothing to do with it isn't true in my opinion. He is the one who won't do his job and make Ozzie not trot out the worst every day player in baseball (and JR has said that the GM should always have power to fire his manager, so I don't buy the whole he doesn't have to power to set Ozzie straight). He is the one who acquired the injured Jake Peavy and the underachieving Alex Rios. He also spent an extra $8 million on Jackson while Hudson looks every bit as good for 1/8 the cost (and we can't forget that Holmberg is a very legit prospect as well). He is the very reason they had to go "all in" to field a competitive team. If he had been a little bit more wise with his money, we wouldn't have to worry about how this team has to start winning or else it will start to bleed money, and, should they fail to take the division, the whole franchise would be set back years because of how bad he's let the farm system get. I won't fault the Dunn signing, but KW has been far from perfect.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 26, 2011 -> 11:40 AM) They play badly in August/September. That's how I should've phrased it. I'm pretty sure they even did it in 2008, but the division was so bad that they still managed to win. Yeah, I recall both the Twins and Sox trying their hardest to lose the division, but we thankfully won the coin toss to have the final game played at home.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2011 -> 06:01 PM) Peavy has a decade under his belt. He will be fine for next year. Wasn't conditioning a huge part of him struggling to come back this season?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:24 AM) Super 2 is different. That is for arbitration purposes only. You have to have 172 days (times six) of service to be able to become a free agent on your own. If you are a super 2, all that means is that you get to go to arb one more year. Ah, my mistake.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 08:30 AM) Here is the article http://www.southsidesox.com/2011/6/21/2234...dayan#storyjump Not saying he's wrong, but there do seem to be conflicting opinions on the matter: QUOTE (Kalapse @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) He has 83 days of service, they'd have to keep him down there until like August to have a shot at avoiding super 2.

So, it's settled. Cats are smarter than dogs.

QUOTE (docsox24 @ Jun 16, 2011 -> 01:49 PM) I would like to see what a guy like that would look like out there.

I've always thought it was interesting that everybody completely forgets that David Holmberg was part of that trade too. He's putting up a pretty decent season, albeit in A ball.