I can't blame Ozzie anymore....this is ALL on Kenny

[CWSGuy406]

Some of you guys are complete f***ing morons.

 

The Sox were the best team BAR NONE in 2005. They have always been a competitive team since 1990, and the team has never finished below .500 with KW as GM.

 

You're definitely spot on. People are pointing to the early years as a fault of Kenny's, but don't look at the vast improvements he has made as GM -- really, that's what's I liked seeing.

 

The farm system is a big problem in the organization right now, and that falls firmly on Kenny's shoulders. However, he has vowed to change -- this week's draft will be a big hint on whether he's serious about those changes.

[mr_genius]

The Sox were the best team BAR NONE in 2005.

 

 

totally

 

no way that team was a "fluke"

[WhiteSoxfan1986]

You're definitely spot on. People are pointing to the early years as a fault of Kenny's, but don't look at the vast improvements he has made as GM -- really, that's what's I liked seeing.

 

The farm system is a big problem in the organization right now, and that falls firmly on Kenny's shoulders. However, he has vowed to change -- this week's draft will be a big hint on whether he's serious about those changes.

 

In the end a lot of it comes down to who develops players and who doesn't. The Indians, Twins, and Tigers have been developing players while the Sox haven't

[WCSox]

You're definitely spot on. People are pointing to the early years as a fault of Kenny's, but don't look at the vast improvements he has made as GM -- really, that's what's I liked seeing.

 

DING! DING! DING!

 

Garcia, Contreras, Dye, El Duque, AJ, Jenks, Hermanson, and even Pods were essential to our '05 championship. And now we have Thome, Danks, and Vazquez.

 

The farm system is a big problem in the organization right now, and that falls firmly on Kenny's shoulders. However, he has vowed to change -- this week's draft will be a big hint on whether he's serious about those changes.

 

This is the most reasonable criticism of KW that I've heard here in a while. The farm system definitely needs to improve. With the way that this team is currently playing and with Mark, JD, and Crede no under contract after this year, it may happen sooner rather than later.

[Greg The Bull Luzinski]

Ozzie apparently hinted at some changes that will happen on Monday

 

 

Big change: Mcdougal sent down or put on DL. That will fix everything. KW's big change will be nothing special.

[CWSGuy406]

In the end a lot of it comes down to who develops players and who doesn't. The Indians, Twins, and Tigers have been developing players while the Sox haven't

 

And clearly the Sox have been lagging in that area. I'm in no way defending Sox player development/scouting -- it needs to improve, no questions asked.

 

To be fair, though, Detroit and Cleveland have reaped the benefits of being consistently 'bad' for such a long time (Cleveland to a lesser extent). Detroit was in a position to get Bonderman because they were sellers in 2002. Verlander was a second overall pick, and future additions Cameron Maybin and Andrew Miller are/were also top ten picks.

 

Cleveland also benefited from years of losing/selling -- see the Sizemore/Colon trade.

 

Don't get me wrong -- this doesn't absolve the Sox scouting department by any means. I'm just saying that both Cleveland and Detroit have been lucky enough to pick so high to go along with that good scouting. The Sox have had neither of those -- one of them falls on their shoulders.

 

Minnesota, OTOH -- is there anybody better?

[KevHead0881]

Why don't we just tag a thread titled "Who do we want to fire today?"

 

I'm sure it would get a lot of use here. Hell, it would have come in handy in previous years, as this has always been a popular theme here...even in 2005.

 

My suggestion for today: Fire Mark Salas. What the hell has he done to get us out of this mess?

Edited June 2, 2007 by KevHead0881

[chisox72]

The worst part of all of this for me, based upon the moves that will come Monday per Oz, I will get to see half of this crappy bullpen again when I am in Louisville Tuesday, watching Charlotte play the Bats. Ooh, and as an added bonus, I may get to see Prancer doing his rehab too!!

 

I am not sure what to do here, as I continue to go back and forth. This much is for certain, something needs to happen now, as we can't keep trotting the same broken horses out of the barn.

[Gregory Pratt]

Let me throw something out there: KW hasn't made a decent trade post-2005. Think about it. What was the big trade post-2005? He got rid of A-Row to get Thome. Was that worth it? Think about it. That meant:

 

a) You just took out a fan favorite and a proven team cheerleader, Aaron Rowand

B) You did this immediately after winning the World Series with this squad--what happened to: if it ain't broke?

c) Thome was fun for homers the first half of 2006 but quickly faded; he's been a non-factor this year as well, and he doesn't bunt or play smallball

d) Brian Anderson was a bust and created a 9-hole

 

Was that worth it? Don't get me wrong I love Thome and he's a class act and a gentleman, but were we really that better off with him and then BA in center than with keeping the 2005 team more or less intact?

 

All you ever do is talk about "smallball," "2005" and Rowand. Two things: Thome for Rowand is an absolute steal, Gio included.

 

Rowand isn't very good. I know he's lighting it up, but he's not very good, overall.

 

PS: the Sox needed to acquire offense for 2006. You know why? Because Kenny knew that the pitching staff wouldn't be good enough again to do what it did in 05 and you can't be competitive once they regressed because they were the ninth best offense in the AL, I believe.

 

So let's not pretend that acquiring Thome for "proven fan-favorite cheerleader" Aaron Rowand was a bad deal. ESPECIALLY since the Phillies are paying for some ofi t.

 

totally

 

no way that team was a "fluke"

 

Hermanson was flukey. Garland's first half was flukey and overall ERA was flukey. Cotts and Politte were flukey. Everett was sort of flukey.

 

Listen, there's nothing wrong with being flukey. That's baseball sometimes.

 

But also: the 2005 team was excellent. Very good team, and everything clicked. That doesn't mean it wasn't kind of flukey. Every team has to have flukes here and there to succeed.

[RME JICO]

2005 was not a fluke. The Sox won because the other teams were not as competitive as they are now. Detroit was putting their pieces together, Cleveland was still young, and the Twins weren't the piranhas yet. Also, the Sox bullpen was lights out. That is the one thing that is missing this year, even with this anemic offense.

[caulfield12]

All you ever do is talk about "smallball," "2005" and Rowand. Two things: Thome for Rowand is an absolute steal, Gio included.

 

Rowand isn't very good. I know he's lighting it up, but he's not very good, overall.

 

PS: the Sox needed to acquire offense for 2006. You know why? Because Kenny knew that the pitching staff wouldn't be good enough again to do what it did in 05 and you can't be competitive once they regressed because they were the ninth best offense in the AL, I believe.

 

So let's not pretend that acquiring Thome for "proven fan-favorite cheerleader" Aaron Rowand was a bad deal. ESPECIALLY since the Phillies are paying for some ofi t.

Hermanson was flukey. Garland's first half was flukey and overall ERA was flukey. Cotts and Politte were flukey. Everett was sort of flukey.

 

Listen, there's nothing wrong with being flukey. That's baseball sometimes.

 

But also: the 2005 team was excellent. Very good team, and everything clicked. That doesn't mean it wasn't kind of flukey. Every team has to have flukes here and there to succeed.

 

 

I think you would have to say that last year's Cardinals (at 83-78) were much more flukey than the White Sox, and the 1997 and 2003 Marlins for that matter.

 

KW, as mentioned, hasn't presided over a losing season from 2001-2006. That's a pretty impressive record for a GM who worked with "mid-tier" payrolls for most of that tenure. He won the World Series in 2005 with a $75 million payroll. Once again, not flukey.

 

It would have been flukey had last year's team ended up like the 2003 Anaheim Angels, but I don't think they were flukey...or were the Red Sox flukey when we wiped them out in the 2005 playoffs because they didn't repeat? Oh, gee, it's actually difficult to repeat? You don't say!

 

I do fault Guillen for being a different style of manager since the Mariotti debacle...he's lost some of his spunk and fire, and he has to say ever more outrageous things to get everyone's attention. That can eventually lead to getting tuned out, and it's happened to almost every big league manager recently (when they overstay their welcome), with two notable exceptions, Torre and Bobby Cox. Gardenhire might belong in that group, I'm not willing to put him there quite yet.

 

The Twins were also very fortunate...1) not to have enough money to sign Prior if they wanted to, 2) that Mauer was a hometown boy, if anything, that was very "flukey" how that whole situation turned out. They would be lucky to be .500 without Mauer and a broken down Liriano and Prior.

 

2000 Yankees $108 million

2001 D-Backs $85 million, which led to their near-bankruptcy

2002 Angels $63 million

2003 Marlins $63 million

2004 Red Sox $125 million

2005 White Sox $75 million

2006 Cardinals $89 million

 

If you adjust the Marlins and D-Backs payrolls for inflation, they're very close to the 05 White Sox. The Yankees, D-Backs, Red Sox and Cardinals weren't even close. That's impressive.

 

 

2005 was not a fluke. The Sox won because the other teams were not as competitive as they are now. Detroit was putting their pieces together, Cleveland was still young, and the Twins weren't the piranhas yet. Also, the Sox bullpen was lights out. That is the one thing that is missing this year, even with this anemic offense.

 

 

Each of those Twins' teams from 02-04 grew progressive weaker, "bottomed out" at 83-79 in 2005 and then obviously they were fully "reloaded" for 2006. If only we could be so lucky to go through one 83-79 season before winning 96 games the next season. That would be almost as rewarding as winning the World Series.

[Gregory Pratt]

I don't think all of 2005 was flukey or even the most part.

But there were definitely flukey things in that season.

 

Hermanson is one. Garland's first half. Everett. Politte. Cotts. The whole bullpen, really.

 

Having three closers, through different periods, who got the job done.

 

Flukey things happen to all good teams, is all I'm saying. Even flukey losses.

[fathom]

totally

 

no way that team was a "fluke"

 

It was a fluke in terms of how everything came together with guys having career years and other teams, besides the Indians, having a lot of issues in the AL. However, for about 80 pct of the season, the Sox were clearly the best team on the field. If you want to point to a team that fluked it's way to the WS, the Cards last year is the best example.

[caulfield12]

It was a fluke in terms of how everything came together with guys having career years and other teams, besides the Indians, having a lot of issues in the AL. However, for about 80 pct of the season, the Sox were clearly the best team on the field. If you want to point to a team that fluked it's way to the WS, the Cards last year is the best example.

 

 

Then you add in the Graffanino error, AJ's strikeout versus Escobar (and the time he was tagged without the ball by Escobar), Pods' homer off Lidge, Blum's homer...seemingly every possible break went our way. Of course, we had to take advantage of the opportunities we were given, but we did that too. Good teams have a way of creating their own "breaks," the tried and true sports cliche.

[mr_genius]

It was a fluke in terms of how everything came together with guys having career years and other teams, besides the Indians, having a lot of issues in the AL.

 

 

 

Pods, had good had good years before 2005 - not a career year

Iguchi had good years in Japan before 2005 - not a career year

Konerko had good years before 2005 - not a career year

Dye had good years before 2005 - not a career year

Crede had an average year in 2005 - not career year

Uribe had an average year in 2005 - not a career year

Frank got hurt - certainly not a career year

 

Garland had an average year

Garcia had an average year

Buehrle had a good year

Count had a good year

 

Red Sox had a great team in 05, Yankees had a great team in 05, Angels had a very good team in 05, Cleveland had a very good team in 05

 

the 05 sox were the best team in MLB that year. we still have a lot of talent, just are getting old. has the window of opportunity shut on this team? maybe. but thats a whole different issue.

 

 

Then you add in the Graffanino error, AJ's strikeout versus Escobar (and the time he was tagged without the ball by Escobar), Pods' homer off Lidge, Blum's homer...seemingly every possible break went our way.

 

a good team getting cluth hits. what a bunch of flukes. seriously, so if the Yankees do it, they are cluth... the sox do it and certain poster here think "they just got lucky".

 

yes the pitching got hot at the right time, therefore we went 11-1 in the playoffs. 11-1 is not a fluke, it's dominance.

 

i agree that the cardinals weren't that good

 

I don't think all of 2005 was flukey or even the most part.

But there were definitely flukey things in that season.

 

well, by that definition, all WS winning teams are "flukey"

Edited June 3, 2007 by mr_genius

[Jack Parkman]

The Twins were also very fortunate...1) not to have enough money to sign Prior if they wanted to, 2) that Mauer was a hometown boy, if anything, that was very "flukey" how that whole situation turned out. They would be lucky to be .500 without Mauer and a broken down Liriano and Prior.

I disagree. If the Cubs had taken Mauer and the Twins had taken Prior, Then Mauer would be a non prospect in high A or AA ball, and baseball writers would have been arguing for the last 3 years whether to give the Cy Young award to Santana or Prior. The Cubs organization ruined Prior. If he had been a Twin, he would either have a Cy Young award or would have finished 2nd to Santana for the last 3 years. Not only would that have happened, the Sox would not have won the 2005 World Series, and Minny would have a couple under their belt along with division championships for 6 years and counting.

Edited June 3, 2007 by southsida86

[fathom]

Pods, had good had good years before 2005 - not a career year

Iguchi had good years in Japan before 2005 - not a career year

Konerko had good years before 2005 - not a career year

Dye had good years before 2005 - not a career year

Crede had an average year in 2005 - not career year

Uribe had an average year in 2005 - not a career year

Frank got hurt - certainly not a career year

 

Garland had an average year

Garcia had an average year

Buehrle had a good year

Count had a good year

 

We had career years from so many pitchers that year, especially our relievers. We also were the benefits of other teams suffering injuries during the last 1/3 of the year....something that has hurt us in recent years. We definitely deserved to win it that year though, don't get me wrong.

Edited June 3, 2007 by fathom

[mr_genius]

We had career years from so many pitchers that year, especially our relievers. We also were the benefits of other teams suffering injuries during the last 1/3 of the year....something that has hurt us in recent years. We definitely deserved to win it that year though, don't get me wrong.

 

the starters all had a great year, but each of them have done that before or since. so i wouldn't really say those were flukey or merely career years.

 

the pen, yea, there was some big time "probably not gonna happen again" type pitching in 2005. but bullpen pitchers are often prone to up and down seasons. it seems like everyone in the 2007 pen is having a horrible down year. top that off with the horrible seasons some of our all-star caliber hitters are having ... it's been ugly lately.

Edited June 3, 2007 by mr_genius

[fathom]

the starters all had a great year, but each of them have done that before or since. so i wouldn't really say those were flukey or merely career years.

 

the pen, yea, there was some big time "probably not gonna happen again" type pitching in 2005. but bullpen pitchers are often prone to up and down seasons. it seems like everyone in the 2007 pen is having a horrible down year. top that off with the horrible seasons some of our all-star caliber hitters are having ... it's been ugly lately.

 

Yeah, I always say Neal Cotts allowing one homer all season throwing only 91 mph high fastballs is one of the most astonishing stats you'll ever see. Also, I'm pretty sure Cliff Politte has the lowest percentage of hits on balls put in play.

[GreenSox]

Another problem is the change in organizational philosophy which has been implemented to a much greater extent now than it was 2 years ago. What is the genesis of the orgranizational philosophy of a)speed of fastball being the top credential for a pitcher and b)free swingers greatly preferred over hitters with plate discipline. I think that's all Ozzie and Kenny is getting players that Ozzie likes.

 

Williams hasn't done the best job the last 2 years filling holes; BUT the "Swing at everything" offensive philosophy and judging pitchers on fastball speed (which is why I doubt they re-sign MB) is also fault.

[CWSGuy406]

Yeah, I always say Neal Cotts allowing one homer all season throwing only 91 mph high fastballs is one of the most astonishing stats you'll ever see. Also, I'm pretty sure Cliff Politte has the lowest percentage of hits on balls put in play.

 

Just based on memory, and without looking at BAPIP, it sure seemed like Hermanson was a lot luckier with regards to line drives hit right at people. I don't know what was in Politte's right arm in 2005, but he had an amazing slider and a great two-seam fastball.

 

But yeah... that year was really something to behold.

[fathom]

Just based on memory, and without looking at BAPIP, it sure seemed like Hermanson was a lot luckier with regards to line drives hit right at people. I don't know what was in Politte's right arm in 2005, but he had an amazing slider and a great two-seam fastball.

 

But yeah... that year was really something to behold.

 

Ha, Hermanson sure had that warning track fly out pitch working. He had an amazing splitter during the first few months, but once he lost that, he was basically throwing 90 mph fastballs down the plate. Hermanson also had a knack for getting very good hitters, like Tejada, VMart, and Sweeney to pop up meatballs in big situations.

 

Just based on memory, and without looking at BAPIP, it sure seemed like Hermanson was a lot luckier with regards to line drives hit right at people. I don't know what was in Politte's right arm in 2005, but he had an amazing slider and a great two-seam fastball.

 

But yeah... that year was really something to behold.

 

Politte had amazing control that year. He started to lose it towards the end of the season, but his control for 90 pct of the year was what Aardsma's control in April was like.

[South Side Fireworks Man]

I don't think anybody can claim with a straight face that, post-2005, we were all clamoring to get rid of Konerko, Dye, Crede, Uribe and/or Iguchi.

 

The only one I remember everybody being down on heavily last year was, rightfully so, Pods. I was one of them. I was like: get rid of that motherf******--but thanks again for 2005, Scotty.

 

Nobody could have anticipated last year's almost-MVP (Dye) being this bad for so long first half, or Crede (after finally breaking out in 2005) back to his 2004 ways, or Paulie back to his... what? 2003 form?

 

So for that reason, I'm hardly going to take aim at KW for keeping those guys on. The bullpen, though? Yep, that was pretty much his creation, and if you were going to trade away a top starter (Freddy) and a top starting prospect (B-Mac)... it appears what he got for those trades went bust. Boom goes the dynamite, as somebody put it in another thread referring to something else.

 

Let me throw something out there: KW hasn't made a decent trade post-2005. Think about it. What was the big trade post-2005? He got rid of A-Row to get Thome. Was that worth it? Think about it. That meant:

 

a) You just took out a fan favorite and a proven team cheerleader, Aaron Rowand

B) You did this immediately after winning the World Series with this squad--what happened to: if it ain't broke?

c) Thome was fun for homers the first half of 2006 but quickly faded; he's been a non-factor this year as well, and he doesn't bunt or play smallball

d) Brian Anderson was a bust and created a 9-hole

 

Was that worth it? Don't get me wrong I love Thome and he's a class act and a gentleman, but were we really that better off with him and then BA in center than with keeping the 2005 team more or less intact?

 

This year we kept Jenks (of course) and Thornton (despite his shaky year, I'm all for him) but unloaded B-Mac and Freddy for a crew of flamethrowers almost all if not all who have proven to be a bust.

 

The only other potential culprit that nobody mentions is--gasp--Don Cooper. Although, like Ozzie, Don can only work with what KW provides him. Proven talents and even underrated ones like our starters seem to do fine with him (including Danks) so it's a mystery why the bullpen can't seem to get "fixed" by him. Unless they're unfixable.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is here because I can't remember a year where the bullpen was this atrocious but at the same time we've got our overwhelming offensive woes. I don't know how you "fix" a bullpen at the beginning of June when you've already sent a bunch of guys down.

 

As for Walker I can't think of any more excuses to make for him. Unless you want to try something weird for the team like sports psychologists, I would imagine somebody's gotta get fired soon. Hell at this rate KC could overtake us.

Great post. I disagree on one point. McCarthy for Danks and Masset was a good trade.

 

Some of you guys are complete f***ing morons.

 

The Sox were the best team BAR NONE in 2005. They have always been a competitive team since 1990, and the team has never finished below .500 with KW as GM.

 

Ortiz signed as a free agent in 2005, so the Sox would not have had him during that season because Kenny was after him in 2002 and 2004.

 

There is little evidence, if any, that the Sox were close to acquiring Jason Kendall like they were to Erstad. I also find it hypocritical to bring up his name when people were clamoring for him in 2004 and before 2005 and when Beane's rear was kissed because he "only" gave up Redman and Rhodes.

 

Give it a rest. Even as loyal as JR is to his employees, he's not going to dump a GM who is showing the most frustration of any coaches or front office and knows when to make a move. I also doubt ANY team would dump their GM if the team was .500 a week before the minor league draft.

 

Compare the current reactions to the team's play so far:

Baines: Nothing.

Walker: "You know we'll hit sooner or later. Just look at the back of these guys' baseball cards."

Guillen: "Maybe they should fire me."

KW: "Yes I am frustrated right now. We are underachieving." (told that to Ken Rosenthal.

 

But hey, let's just keep ripping the guy and try to take away his accomplishments because we're all better armchair GM's. Somehow KW looks more foolish for showing interest in Kendall when we had people here hammering out their own trades to get the guy.

Great post too.

Edited June 3, 2007 by South Side Fireworks Man

[caulfield12]

I have to mention how dominant Contreras was during the final two months of the season...how he turned everything around, after being fairly average, slow working/methodical and uncertain whether to pitch with FB or forkball first. He became the dominant pitcher in the AL, and the only indications of that were his first 1/2 year in NY.

 

McCarthy might not have been the difference in us making the playoffs or not, but those starts against the Red Sox, Rangers and Twins (even though he lost to Santana) also helped to stem the tide.

 

Our offense that last six week stretch was very comparable to this year's version...Everett and Rowand, in particular, were lousy.

[greg775]

I'm all for change, but the Sox wouldn't have been any worse had they kept all

the players from the world championship team instead of the tinkering they've done.

The players we've acquired with the exception of Jim Thome haven't done squat.

And as much as I like Thome, don't you all agree he's no longer capable of carrying a

lineup? He's getting older and definitely hasn't hit many homes in bunches this season.

 

I'm surprised anybody would want Oz and/or KW fired however.

Again ... they led us to a World Series title.

This franchise and this city hasn't done squat with the exception of the Oz-KW led

title season.