I feel like people on here forget how good the teams all looked on paper going into the seasons 2009 and beyond. Our superstars failed us or got freak injured- quit hanging KW out to dry and get the f*** over it. CQ ruined his career when he broke his hand but how the hell could anybody know that at the time? Peavy was a BAMF. Rios was free and finally solidified CF. PK in his end prime years. Who the hell would blow that kind of team up and rebuild? We were stacked. Mercy.

Edited July 8, 201510 yr by Jerksticks

I feel like people on here forget how good the teams all looked on paper going into the seasons 2009 and beyond. Our superstars failed us or got freak injured- quit hanging KW out to dry and get the f*** over it. CQ ruined his career when he broke his hand but how the hell could anybody know that at the time? Peavy was a BAMF. Rios was free and finally solidified CF. PK in his end prime years. Who the hell would blow that kind of team up and rebuild? We were stacked. Mercy.

Here's the problem. You're right, how many of those teams seemingly "looked good on paper"? All of them but 2014 right? And yet as a franchise we're below .500 since that time and have 0 playoff appearances? You can even take that back farther, how many other White Sox teams looked really good on paper and completely missed the playoffs? That seemed like an anthem of this franchise in the 2000s as well.

 

So if we "constantly look good on paper" and yet the team completely fails to achieve even the goal of making the playoffs...it's time to stop and re-evaluate the decision making process leading to the conclusion that the team "looks good on paper". What assumptions can we challenge that are proving incorrect? Are we neglecting things like defense or baserunning, things that impact the game a lot but are hard to quantify? We've got so many different guys, such as those from your list, who break down or struggle right when they get to us - is there something wrong with the decision making process that leads us to acquire guys who immediately underperform? Maybe we're spending too much money and trading away too many players to acquire guys at an age where they're at a higher risk of failing. Maybe we're giving away too many draft picks to sign moderate level free agents or guys who are too late in their careers. Maybe we're trying to play too many guys out of position to get them in the lineup. Maybe we're just trying to fill too many holes through free agency and trades because we're not producing our own players. Maybe the lack of fundamentals is hurting us. Maybe we're projecting guys contributions based on career years that they're not likely to match at their ages. Maybe people are playing through too many injuries because of a lack of bench depth. Maybe guys aren't physically or mentally ready for seasons.

 

Over and over and over again...exact same result. "looks good on paper. how did we wind up below .500?" In that case...something is wrong with the logic that leads you to think the team looks good on paper. You're constantly overlooking something, probably several, systemic problems.

Especially when you are the most successful executive the team has ever had.

You're forgetting Frank Lane. All he did was trade for Pierce, Fox, Minoso, Lollar, and a bunch more, plus he signed Aparicio.

Here's the problem. You're right, how many of those teams seemingly "looked good on paper"? All of them but 2014 right? And yet as a franchise we're below .500 since that time and have 0 playoff appearances? You can even take that back farther, how many other White Sox teams looked really good on paper and completely missed the playoffs? That seemed like an anthem of this franchise in the 2000s as well.

 

So if we "constantly look good on paper" and yet the team completely fails to achieve even the goal of making the playoffs...it's time to stop and re-evaluate the decision making process leading to the conclusion that the team "looks good on paper". What assumptions can we challenge that are proving incorrect? Are we neglecting things like defense or baserunning, things that impact the game a lot but are hard to quantify? We've got so many different guys, such as those from your list, who break down or struggle right when they get to us - is there something wrong with the decision making process that leads us to acquire guys who immediately underperform? Maybe we're spending too much money and trading away too many players to acquire guys at an age where they're at a higher risk of failing. Maybe we're giving away too many draft picks to sign moderate level free agents or guys who are too late in their careers. Maybe we're trying to play too many guys out of position to get them in the lineup. Maybe we're just trying to fill too many holes through free agency and trades because we're not producing our own players. Maybe the lack of fundamentals is hurting us. Maybe we're projecting guys contributions based on career years that they're not likely to match at their ages. Maybe people are playing through too many injuries because of a lack of bench depth. Maybe guys aren't physically or mentally ready for seasons.

 

Over and over and over again...exact same result. "looks good on paper. how did we wind up below .500?" In that case...something is wrong with the logic that leads you to think the team looks good on paper. You're constantly overlooking something, probably several, systemic problems.

 

nice post,

 

and at the end of the day, or in this case, at the end of the season, which players rebounded and which didn't. what would that tell you or anyone???

I feel like people on here forget how good the teams all looked on paper going into the seasons 2009 and beyond. Our superstars failed us or got freak injured- quit hanging KW out to dry and get the f*** over it. CQ ruined his career when he broke his hand but how the hell could anybody know that at the time? Peavy was a BAMF. Rios was free and finally solidified CF. PK in his end prime years. Who the hell would blow that kind of team up and rebuild? We were stacked. Mercy.

 

it is not exactly his fault, he is but a puppet, but maybe he is dictating the org policy or direction.

From 2009 to now - since the cutoff is evidently 2008 - there are 12 teams in baseball with a worse win% than the Sox. 6 of them have had no playoff appearances in that time. 5 more have won a total of 6 playoff games in 7 appearances between them. The remaining team is KC, who was a laughing stock until 2014.

 

So as far as "one of the worst franchises," maybe. Depends how large a clump you want to make "the worst" (I'd say bottom 6, I guess, to match the number of divisions) and how much stock you put into short playoff runs (I'd say some).

Let's go crazy and look at the last 55 years: just FIVE playoff appearances for this franchise since 1960! Noodle on that for a few moments! And then we wonder how a team that has been around as long as the Chicago White Sox has been unable to build a robust fan base.

Let's go crazy and look at the last 55 years: just FIVE playoff appearances for this franchise since 1960! Noodle on that for a few moments! And then we wonder how a team that has been around as long as the Chicago White Sox has been unable to build a robust fan base.

 

you see, you are seeing the playoff as the eventual point of success.

 

i am seeing the potential of the team that could have wreak havoc, but didn't b/c of lack of that one vital player.

 

edit..... the 90's are a perfect example.

Edited July 8, 201510 yr by LDF

Let's go crazy and look at the last 55 years: just FIVE playoff appearances for this franchise since 1960! Noodle on that for a few moments! And then we wonder how a team that has been around as long as the Chicago White Sox has been unable to build a robust fan base.

 

 

I think the Cardinals have had 5 playoff appearances in the past 6-7 years alone.

 

Geez, I think I just threw up in my mouth. My beloved Sox SUCK as a franchise. Guess I'll turn to the Bears instead for a little positive spirit...

 

Wait, that won't work either. They have only won 2 football championships in the past 69 years. They're the Cubs of football, famous only for longevity and mindless fans who continue to fill the stadium no matter how bad they are.

 

 

Let's go crazy and look at the last 55 years: just FIVE playoff appearances for this franchise since 1960! Noodle on that for a few moments! And then we wonder how a team that has been around as long as the Chicago White Sox has been unable to build a robust fan base.

In Kenny's 15 years, he's responsible for 2 of those appearances.

In Kenny's 15 years, he's responsible for 2 of those appearances.

 

And one more while head of scouting.

In Kenny's 15 years, he's responsible for 2 of those appearances.

 

With one of the higher payrolls in the division , but hey, look, Geoff Blum is coming to the Cell!

Let's go crazy and look at the last 55 years: just FIVE playoff appearances for this franchise since 1960! Noodle on that for a few moments! And then we wonder how a team that has been around as long as the Chicago White Sox has been unable to build a robust fan base.

For reference, in that time...

CLE = 7 appearances

KC = 8

DET = 9

MIN = 11

 

 

And one more while head of scouting.

And none while averaging .218