Balta1701 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 11:49 AM) From all appearances, JR does listen to his partners and does probably operate using a consensus. I'm just pointing out that if JR wanted to veer off course, he'd get his way. There's a decent chance that keeping Ozzie Guillen and expanding payroll by $25 million last year was doing exactly that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) Sox need the General Manager to have a bounce back decade. A bounceback from the best decade of baseball the Sox have seen in a century or so? I realize its fun with the hyperbole and all, but let's deal in reality here. What he needs to bounce back from is 2-3 years of disappointing teams and a few bad trades. The decade as a whole has been pretty successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 12:15 PM) A bounceback from the best decade of baseball the Sox have seen in a century or so? I realize its fun with the hyperbole and all, but let's deal in reality here. What he needs to bounce back from is 2-3 years of disappointing teams and a few bad trades. The decade as a whole has been pretty successful. Yeah, it's easy to say "aside from 2005, what have they done?" but 2005 happened. That's pretty huge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (joeynach @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) I wasn't really tring to be a di**, but I am just so sick of people, grown men and women, on the other site that I run complaining about not bringing back Mark like some little kid whose player left via Free gency or a trade and they dont understand why...they are just upset the guy on the poster in their room is now gone. But I still thinkin you are looking at the MB sitution in way too much of a bubble. No team has finite resources and retaining Mark takes some of those resources, look at the Red Sox, they have no RF and trade away their SS last week in a salary dump last week so they could stay in budget. Mark was offered salaries of $10, $12, and $14M on the open market, and guess which one he took. But dont forget one of the #1 reasons the Sox had success in 2005 is b/c they did not reseign Magglio Ordonez and they saved themselves the $14M he was supposedely offered by the Sox, he obviously signed with Det for much more. But KW even said that $14M allowed the Sox to fill multiple holes and make the team better as a whole. The $$ was spend on Dye in RF, Iguchi at 2B, and El Duque as the 5th Starter.....and all 3 of those pieces contributedly greatly to a 99 win team and WS title. On the other hand Magglio signed like a 6 Year $110M deal with Detroit, and yeah he had a good 05, 06, 07, but as he approached his mid 30s toward the back end of the deal he was often injuried and unproductive as the Tigers paid him like $18M per. Basically KW made the right decision. Detroit paid Maggs on past performance, KW probably would have loved to resign Maggs on a 3 or 4 Year deal, but again, he knew you dont pay a player based on what they produced in the past, what you expect them to produce in the future. And very rarely does anyone expect 33/34 Year old Free Agents to continue to produce at the levels they have in the past.....the only time its ever happened has been with blatent steriod abuse (Bonds, Clemens, Palmerio, etc). And again dont look at MB in a bubble, look at the White Sox, what if MB's non return for the Sox is the only way KW was able to extend Danks for 5 Years, what if Danks then wins a Cy Young or takes us to the playoffs. What if Chris Sale or Zach Stewart, who take MB's spot in the rotation emerge as absolute studs, posting 5x better numbers than MB. What if one of those guys is then traded for the next Posey, Strasburg, or young rising star, etc etc. What if the Sox are able to spend in the Cespedes sweepstakes, rumored to be as high as $60M, only b/c they saved $50M+ on not retaining Mark. What if Cespedes comes here and is ROY and is the next young rising star. The point is want whats best for the White Sox from 2012 and beyond, not whats best for yourself as a fan, whats most comfortable for you, not whats easiest for your kids to recognize, not whats continous....just whats best. And IMO and most on this board, if there is even a glimmer of hope that any of those situations I mentioned above come true for the Sox, then its 110% worth the risk of not re-signed MB. And your Jamie Moyer comp though...bleh. Yeah he pitched into his late 30s and 40s but no one was bending over backwards to hand with guy near $15M per year. The highest salary he ever made was $8M in 2005. The Mariners soon dumped him after that, he spend like 4 season with Philly making around $6M a year to produce ERAs of 5.01, 3.71, 4.94, and 4.84. While his K rate declined from 6.01 in 2007 to 5.08 in 2010. I really dont think thats a model pitcher you want to match the Marlins 4 Year $58M offer for, I wouldnt even offer half that for those numbers no matter what the pitchers name is. Nice post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (joeynach @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) What if Chris Sale or Zach Stewart, who take MB's spot in the rotation emerge as absolute studs, posting 5x better numbers than MB. STRETCH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Sox need the General Manager to have a bounce back decade. hahahaha Yeah the last decade was the worst! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:19 PM) hahahaha Yeah the last decade was the worst! The irony is that is coming from someone named "Oldsox". Apparently not old enough to remember decades like the 60's/70's/80's or 90's, where we made two total playoff appearances and had zero world series appearances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) The irony is that is coming from someone named "Oldsox". Apparently not old enough to remember decades like the 60's/70's/80's or 90's, where we made two total playoff appearances and had zero world series appearances. In fairness, it used to be a lot harder to make the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:24 PM) In fairness, it used to be a lot harder to make the playoffs. You have to go back nine decades to get a better winning percentage over a ten year period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:31 PM) You have to go back nine decades to get a better winning percentage over a ten year period. From 1951-1967 there was 17 straight years of above .500 ball, with several years with 90 wins and others that were on at least a 90 pace if they played 162. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) From 1951-1967 there was 17 straight years of above .500 ball, with several years with 90 wins and others that were on at least a 90 pace if they played 162. Both the 50's and 60's came in under the 00's in terms of winning percentages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) Both the 50's and 60's came in under the 00's in terms of winning percentages. The 60s ended badly. If there were divisions, chances are there would have been a few playoff appearances during that 17 year streak, and maybe a championship or 2. For the 2000 decade, they have had the advantage of playing an unbalanced AL Central schedule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:39 PM) From 1951-1967 there was 17 straight years of above .500 ball, with several years with 90 wins and others that were on at least a 90 pace if they played 162. Wow. From 1963-1965, they won 94, 98, & 95 games, yet never made the playoffs. Yet in 1959 when the made the WS, they won 94 games and no other team in baseball won 90. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:42 PM) Both the 50's and 60's came in under the 00's in terms of winning percentages. I think the 50s were higher than the 2000s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) The 60s ended badly. If there were divisions, chances are there would have been a few playoff appearances during that 17 year streak, and maybe a championship or 2. For the 2000 decade, they have had the advantage of playing an unbalanced AL Central schedule. The 2000's didn't exactly end well either, and it included a World Series win while leading all of baseball in wins. Even if you want to argue the 60's that is five decades ago. That still leaves plenty of room to give credit to the teams success, and not to label it as some sort of a wasted decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 01:54 PM) The 2000's didn't exactly end well either, and it included a World Series win while leading all of baseball in wins. Even if you want to argue the 60's that is five decades ago. That still leaves plenty of room to give credit to the teams success, and not to label it as some sort of a wasted decade. I never said it was wasted. The last half was a waste of a huge opportunity, and its a lot different today. The White Sox have had some advantages they didn't have in the 60s, 70s, 80s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 02:03 PM) I never said it was wasted. The last half was a waste of a huge opportunity, and its a lot different today. The White Sox have had some advantages they didn't have in the 60s, 70s, 80s. You didn't say it, but you jumped into the middle of an argument where that was the central claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 07:23 AM) Was this really typed? Come on, an admin had to have done this as a joke...right? This. What the hell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (joeynach @ Feb 6, 2012 -> 04:23 PM) but no one on this board looks at this team like a teenager Ahem. (And yes, I was actually very sad when Mark left. But I get really attached to my favorite players. Except Magglio. f*** you Magglio.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeynach Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Lets get back on track in this thread, #75PitchPeavy sucks. There I said it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Ahem. (And yes, I was actually very sad when Mark left. But I get really attached to my favorite players. Except Magglio. f*** you Magglio.) I learned that lesson with Ventura. I was heartbroken when he left. And yes, f*** Maggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI1020 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 08:31 PM) You have to go back nine decades to get a better winning percentage over a ten year period.White Sox W-L records and winning pct. by three selected decades. 1950's 847-693 .550 4 90+ win seasons (1954,55,57 and 59), all in 154 game seasons. 9 winning seasons total, including 1 AL pennant. 1960's 852-760 .5285 3 90+ win seasons (1963-65) 8 winning seasons. 2000's 857-764 .5286 3 90+ in seasons (2000-05-06) 7 winning seasons, 3 AL Central championships, 1 AL pennant, 1 WS title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 02:49 PM) I learned that lesson with Ventura. I was heartbroken when he left. And yes, f*** Maggs. That was one thing that Ozzie had right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (SI1020 @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 02:49 PM) White Sox W-L records and winning pct. by three selected decades. 1950's 847-693 .550 4 90+ win seasons (1954,55,57 and 59), all in 154 game seasons. 9 winning seasons total, including 1 AL pennant. 1960's 852-760 .5285 3 90+ win seasons (1963-65) 8 winning seasons. 2000's 857-764 .5286 3 90+ in seasons (2000-05-06) 7 winning seasons, 3 AL Central championships, 1 AL pennant, 1 WS title. It's simultaneously easy and hard to forget 2005. I still remember watching that last out and thinking, "No f***ing way." But I also remember, unfortunately, 2006 and 2011. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 7, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) It's simultaneously easy and hard to forget 2005. I still remember watching that last out and thinking, "No f***ing way." But I also remember, unfortunately, 2006 and 2011. The thing the Sox did right during the 2005 season was beat up on the AL Central. They were 30 over .500 vs the divison 6 over vs. the NL and were .500 against the AL East and AL West. They have to get back to beating up their Central Division foes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.