WOOT! THREE WAY TIE FOR LAST PLACE IN MLB!

[kapkomet]

 

Well, this is so sad. But now, it's really to the point that I hope they play well yet end up with that magical #1 pick.

 

61-83.

[DBAHO]

Really you don't want to lose any type of game when you go out there. And I'm sure people could argue "but we're trying to instill a winning culture etc." here.

 

But really, what is going to win another 10 or so games in September going to do for this ballclub? Are they going to take that momentum into next season? I doubt it, unless they can magically bottle it up and bring it out again in 2008.

 

What we should be doing, is basically called "tanking". And really the more we lose, the more likely that KW is forced to make changes, and not only does that include the players obviously, but the coaching staff as well.

[Rowand44]

Really you don't want to lose any type of game when you go out there. And I'm sure people could argue "but we're trying to instill a winning culture etc." here.

 

But really, what is going to win another 10 or so games in September going to do for this ballclub? Are they going to take that momentum into next season? I doubt it, unless they can magically bottle it up and bring it out again in 2008.

 

What we should be doing, is basically called "tanking". And really the more we lose, the more likely that KW is forced to make changes, and not only does that include the players obviously, but the coaching staff as well.

Hope Fields, Richar, Floyd and Danks continue to develop and hope for the number 1 pick as well. That's what I'm doing at the moment.

[RME JICO]

They might as well bring up more minor leaguers to see what they have. You never play to lose, but.......

 

Just play spoiler and make Detroit the 1st place loser. With 7 games left vs KC, you have to believe those games will decide who gets the 1st pick.

[Rowand44]

With 7 games left vs KC, you have to believe those games will decide who gets the 1st pick.

We'll probably win like 6 of those.

[Brian]

I think it is funny that some people think that if we have the #1 pick, we'll pick the best player and pay him the big bonus money and such.

 

We will probably draft a kid that would normally be a #20 pick or so and go cheap.

[Rowand44]

I think it is funny that some people think that if we have the #1 pick, we'll pick the best player and pay him the big bonus money and such.

 

We will probably draft a kid that would normally be a #20 pick or so and go cheap.

That might happen but there is absolutely no downside to the 1 pick, period. It's that simple really.

[kwolf68]

 

Im really shocked the Sox have sunk this low. Just last night we had one sinlge player in our lineup with an OBP of over .320 ... holy cow. And some think all we need is a couple bullpen arms and a CF.

[RockRaines]

I think it is funny that some people think that if we have the #1 pick, we'll pick the best player and pay him the big bonus money and such.

 

We will probably draft a kid that would normally be a #20 pick or so and go cheap.

nobody does that with the number 1 pick. Deflect your hatred elsewhere.

[Brian]

nobody does that with the number 1 pick. Deflect your hatred elsewhere.

 

Hatred for what?

[The Ginger Kid]

does anyone have some idea of who's projected to be one of the top draft picks?

[Milkman delivers]

Who's the last team to fall so far so quickly (1st to basically last) that didn't do it intentionally (Marlins)?

[Dick Allen]

Who's the last team to fall so far so quickly (1st to basically last) that didn't do it intentionally (Marlins)?

Before this season, the Marlins were the only team to finish below .500 2 years after winning the WS. I think they did it both times they won. There were a couple of teams that finish below .500 right after winning but bounced back the next season.

Edited September 11, 2007 by Dick Allen

[Milkman delivers]

Before this season, the Marlins were the only team to finish below .500 2 years after winning the WS. I think they did it both times they won. There were a couple of teams that finish below .500 right after winning but bounced back the next season.

 

So, you're basically saying that this team fell apart quicker and worse than any other Championship team in history?

[Dick Allen]

So, you're basically saying that this team fell apart quicker and worse than any other Championship team in history?

It depends how you look at it, but its up there.

[NorthSideSox72]

Before this season, the Marlins were the only team to finish below .500 2 years after winning the WS. I think they did it both times they won. There were a couple of teams that finish below .500 right after winning but bounced back the next season.

Nice cherry-picking, again. 2 years after? I once posted in here (I need to find the post) a list of how teams did the YEAR after they won a WS. As I recall, a significant number played below .500, and I don't think more than half made the playoffs the next year. So looking at 2 years out, this team collapsed, and that is actually not as fast as a number of teams collapsed.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Found the list. Its the world series team, their record for that season, their record the NEXT season, and result...

 

1982 St. Louis Cardinals, 92-70, 79-83 (no playoffs)

1983 Baltimore Orioles, 98-64, 85-77 (no playoffs)

1984 Detroit Tigers, 104-58, 84-77 (no playoffs)

1985 Kansas City Royals, 91-71, 76-86 (no playoffs)

1986 New York Mets, 108-54, 92-70 (no playoffs)

1987 Minnesota Twins, 85-77, 91-71 (no playoffs)

1988 Los Angeles Dodgers, 94-67, 77-83 (no playoffs)

1989 Oakland A’s, 99-63, 103-59 (lost in WS)

1990 Cincinnati Reds, 91-71, 74-88 (no playoffs)

1991 Minnesota Twins, 95-67, 90-72 (no playoffs)

1992 Toronto Blue Jays, 96-66, 95-67 (repeated as champs)

1993 Toronto Blue Jays, 95-67, 55-60*** (no playoffs, third place, strike)

1994 ***Strike

1995 Atlanta Braves, 90-54, 96-66 (lost in WS)

1996 New York Yankees, 92-70, 96-66 (lost in ALDS)

1997 Florida Marlins, 92-70, 54-108 (no playoffs)

1998 New York Yankees, 114-48, 98-64 (repeated as champs)

1999 New York Yankees, 98-64, 87-74 (repeated as champs)

2000 New York Yankees, 87-74, 95-65 (lost in WS)

2001 Arizona Diamondbacks, 91-71, 98-64 (lost in NLDS)

2002 Anaheim Angels, 99-63, 77-85 (no playoffs)

2003 Florida Marlins, 91-71, 83-79 (no playoffs)

2004 Boston Red Sox, 98-64, 95-67 (lost in ALDS)

2005 Chicago White Sox, 99-63, *85-67 (no playoffs)

 

So, that's 7 teams in 25 (8 in 26 if you include this year's Cards who are below .500 at this point) who fell below .500 ONE year after their WS. That's a significant chunk (28%). So your second year choice is kind of odd. The Sox were still well above .500 in 2006.

 

[Dick Allen]

Nice cherry-picking, again. 2 years after? I once posted in here (I need to find the post) a list of how teams did the YEAR after they won a WS. As I recall, a significant number played below .500, and I don't think more than half made the playoffs the next year. So looking at 2 years out, this team collapsed, and that is actually not as fast as a number of teams collapsed.

What I stated was a fact and it has to do with this season since it was 2 years ago the White Sox won it all. It is not cherry picking. I also stated a few teams were below .500 the season after they won but bounced back. It actually was on a Fox or ESPN broadcast back in April or May. I also pointed out it depends how you look at it when it was posed this was one of the biggest collapes ever. I actually posted my fact earlier this year when I thought the odds were the White Sox would have a decent second half based on it.

[RockRaines]

Hatred for what?

KW obviously. NOBODY that has the number 1 pick does what you just said. The only reason you said it was because you wanted to say something negative about the management of this team.

[Gregory Pratt]

KW obviously. NOBODY that has the number 1 pick does what you just said. The only reason you said it was because you wanted to say something negative about the management of this team.

 

sounds like contempt for Reinsdorf + his friendship with Selig + the draft "slot" suggestions + our scouts than, say, hatred of KW.

 

I'm not sure what we'll do, but I'll laugh pretty hard if we take Jordan Danks with a top five pick.

[Dick Allen]

I do think the Marlins took Adrian Gonzalez #1 in 2000 based on signability. I'm pretty sure he was projected to go in the first round but much lower. You look at that 2000 draft and scratch your head. The first round was pretty bad. Gonzalez actually may be the best player.

[southsider2k5]

KW obviously. NOBODY that has the number 1 pick does what you just said. The only reason you said it was because you wanted to say something negative about the management of this team.

 

IIRC the Bush pick by SD, and the pick of Mauer over Prior were met with the accusations of players being drafted for signability instead of top talents.

[RockRaines]

IIRC the Bush pick by SD, and the pick of Mauer over Prior were met with the accusations of players being drafted for signability instead of top talents.

Mauer at #1 was not a 20-something pick being taken 1st. And bush was considered an elite talent and a top 5 pick. They didnt sign Drew, Weaver or Niemann because of the outragerous bonuses that they wanted, but by no means was Bush considered a 20-something pick either. He was also given the largest signing bonus given to any Padre draft pick.

[Brian]

KW obviously. NOBODY that has the number 1 pick does what you just said. The only reason you said it was because you wanted to say something negative about the management of this team.

 

Uh, no. But continue on with the thread.

[RockRaines]

Uh, no. But continue on with the thread.

Ok, well then we can just chalk it up to you not being familiar with the amateur baseball draft.