iamshack

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:13 PM) When in the past have the Sox spent $56 million on ONE pitcher? Sorry, but I think there's no way in hell that they commit $100 million to two players. I can come up with no other explanation for why the trade clause with Mark would bother Kenny so much other than that he intends to offer the same/similar extension to Jon.

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:10 PM) I just dont get where Williams track record grants him this kind of slack to basically be a jerk . I honestly believe that we will not be in another World Series as long as he is GM. So he should be a pushover? Since when do you have to have a track record to try to get the best possible deal for your organization? Track records have more to do with player agents than General Managers IMO.

QUOTE(WCSox @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 12:07 PM) Than Mark? I'm not sure I'd say that. They're not going to extend both of these guys - that'd be at least $110 million in guaranteed money. I think they would absolutely extend them both at that price. They just want to know that they can move one or both of them should something come up.

QUOTE(spiderman @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:55 AM) That's not a valid point. If the White Sox can't say no to lesser players, then they need to learn how to negoatiate better. It has nothing to do with lesser players. It has to do with Jon Garland.

Part of the reason that we have not acquired many prime free agents is because in the past we have not had the payroll to acquire all that many, and we have not been able to draw that many here. As a result, Kenny has tried to trade for impact players while they are under contract.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) You don't want to, but you contine to piss on the wall then cry when called to the carpet on misleading info. Whatever. You win. Incorrect. I don't mind admitting when I am wrong, and I think it's great when other posters contribute additional information to the discussion. Once again, it's a matter of being condescending when answering a question that (at least the way I interpretted it) was not meant to be nearly as complicated as some choose to make it. I believe the poster was asking whether or not Kenny made an effort to acquire ARod, which he absolutelty did, and has continued to throughout his tenure, as the previous discussion in this thread was whether or not the organizaton has tried to acquire prime free agents. The question was NOT, however, whether Scott Boras actually gave him an honest chance to acquire ARod. Regardless, I appreciate yours and Dick Allen's additional point that Kenny was not allowed to meet with Alex in the absence of Scott Boras; I just wish you wouldn't attempt to make me the fool in doing so, when the gist of my statement was clearly correct.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:22 AM) AHEM. Anyway, am I wrong to feel some sort of optimism here that seem to indicate things aren't as dire as they appeared yesterday morning? I don't think anyone knows. It all depends on what Mark decides he wants to do.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 11:05 AM) From rumors the Sox have "wanted" to sign a lot of people over the years. The Sox never made an offer. In order to "try" to sign someone, that's a pretty important thing that needed to happen. I don't want to get into these bs arguments about semantics that mean absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things, and yet you continue to draw me into them. Kenny wanted ARod perhaps more than any other player that has become available in his tenure as GM. The White Sox may not have made an official offer, but they made it known that they wanted to be key players in the bidding. Boras precluded ANYONE other than Tom Hicks from making any serious offer, as he spotted the sucker at the table immediately. Kenny "tried" to acquire Arod as much or more than any other player that has become available- I think that was the point of the question- not the formalities of the actual signing process.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 10:42 AM) They tried to talk to him. An offer was never made. We wanted to sign him. We were one of the most interested parties and one of the favorites to get him. Boras knew he could bs Tom Hicks and did so, getting him to bid some $50 million in excess of anyone else. There, better?

QUOTE(KevHead0881 @ Jul 3, 2007 -> 10:24 AM) I know it wasn't exactly close, but didn't we "try" to sign ARod before the Rangers blew everybody out of the water in 2001? We absolutely did.

QUOTE(SABR Sox @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 08:43 PM) Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus thinks Kershaw is the best left-handed pitching prospect in the game. Let's be reasonable here, Colletti is a guy that isn't afraid to trade a good prospect for a veteran, but Kershaw seems VERY VERY unlikely. It doesn't matter what Colletti thinks. Logan White will not allow Colletti to deal Kershaw.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 05:43 PM) Glass boy does it again. Oh, sorry. Just laughing at you again. Jeesh, even I can't defend the poor guy anymore.... As for the Buehrle contract, I truly believe Kenny realizes he's going to have to offer Jon whatever he offers Mark, and he doesn't want to have them both with full NTC clauses.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:59 PM) Please, don't let this thread become another dissection of the term "ace", which is of course entirely subjective. Let's just agree that some of us would label MB an ace, and others would not, and move on with the topic. Hah, saw this too late. Sorry.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 03:01 PM) Mark is an excellent pitcher. He is not an ace outside of the CWS. I understand your feelings, but unless you step outside of the box you will never be able to look at the stuation objectively. Agree. Well, that just depends on what your definition of an "ace" is. I think most of the time, people consider aces to be hard throwers, high k/9 guys, etc. And under that definition, Mark is clearly not an ace. However, he compares very favorably amongst pitchers his age in Wins, ERA, WHIP, etc. He's never going to be the guy that has the peripherals that excite everyone, but then again, Javy does, and look where it gets him. I guess it just depends on the way you think of an ace. The way I think about it, is, if I had to choose a pitcher to start the seventh game of the World Series, who would I choose? Now obviously there is Santana- he's probably in a league of his own there. And then there is Verlander, and Peavy, Danny Haren, John Lackey, etc. But outside of Johan Santana, I think Mark fits in well with any of those guys. And that, to me, makes him an "ace."

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:44 PM) Funny he didn't say that in 2004. His numbers were the same to a little worse than 2003. He cut down on his walks and started to win. You're missing the point. Ozzie HELPED Jon make the jump. Therefore, it didn't happen immediately when Ozzie began managing Jon, but AS Ozzie managed Jon. Keep in mind that despite cutting his walk rate, which was even lower in 06' than in 05', his WHIP was about the same in 06' as it had been the rest of his career. And yet he won 18 games. Now I know wins and losses aren't the preeminent statistic as far as starting pitchers go, but I certainly think Jon was a far better pitcher in 06' than in 04', 03' and 02', despite a similar WHIP.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:32 PM) I disagree. He cut his walk rate in half. If Ozzie can get pitchers to do this, how come the bullpen is the mess it is? I don't think anyone disagrees with you that cutting your walk rate, or your WHIP, will help you. You're pointing to that as the sole reason for Jon's success. We are not. I thought yesterday afternoon's game was a prime example of the affect Ozzie has had on Jon.

Anyone heard about any roster moves? Dye going on the DL? Sweeney coming up? Anything?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) I'm going to say it again. There's something more here. If it were as simple as the NTC, this would be done. That cannot be the only "block" to this deal. We all need to stop believing everything that's in the media. I don't know, you may prove right, but Buster Olney and Ken Rosenthal have some pretty damn good sources around baseball. Maybe the Sox are fooling everyone, and trust me, I was in your camp just the other day saying that the NTC could not be it, but these reports have not been contradicted by a soul as of yet.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 02:09 PM) Garland averaged about half an inning more a start under Ozzie than he did under Manuel and then suddenly in 2005 he cut his walk rate almost in half. He figured out how to pitch. Give Ozzie the credit if you will, I will give it to Garland. If Manuel was so bad, how do you give KW a pass on giving him a contract extension? I do think Manuel's time was up when he was canned but I think he was decent. I have a higher opinion of him than the Hawkeroo. He gave him an extension because he was manager of the year in 00' and he won a division. He really had no other choice. I also like Jerry more than most, I even defended the infamous "Neal Cotts" start in New York. But his handling of Jon Garland, IMO, was poor. I'm not sure if you believe Ozzie's opinion about Jon came from Hawk or not, but even Ozzie stressed that he had to give Jon the chances to work through his own struggles, and he did so. Don't get me wrong- I don't think Jon was a crap pitcher under Jerry- but I don't think there is much of a chance Jon would have matured into the guy he is now if Jerry had continued to be manager of this team.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:39 PM) You did notice Garland's first year under Ozzie was worse than his last year under Manuel. Garland matured as a pitcher. Manuel had to lift him, he had to win games. Yeah, want to know why it was worse? Because Jon had to learn how to get out of his own jams instead of leaving in the 4th and 5th inning everytime he got himself in any trouble. We are seeing the results of the learning process now, aren't we? Manual had to lift him to win games, but Ozzie didn't? I understand part of Jon's success as a pitcher came as a result of his natural progression and maturation. I also have seen a crapload of pitchers never take that step, so to assume it was going to happen regardless or automatically is a bit of a leap if you ask me. I give a lot of credit to Ozzie for Jon's success, and I don't think it is entirely coincidental that Jon has become the pitcher he has under Ozzie.

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:36 PM) I was just responding to someone who brought up the Braves Org. But to say you don't know how it happened, here's a little insight. They had three young pitchers that they locked up to long term deals, and built around them. I think that's a pretty good model to start with. Not like our GM who wants to trade away a solid guy because he refuses to give him a NTC, and most likely he will do the same with another young and solid starter either this year or next. But there is a little insight into how the Braves had the run that they did. They weren't afraid to give their allegiance to their starters unlike KW who wants to build a rotation around the ever immortal JV, and JC, and rookies, Danks, Floyd and the our savior GIO!!! Well, I think quite a bit of it was luck as well. Maddux/Glavine are sure-fire hall of famers, and Smoltz is probably as well. I understand they locked these guys up, but our situation isn't synonymous with theirs. If we had the farm system right now to bring in the young players that could produce, I would be all for signing Mark and Jon to long-term deals. But we don't. Let me ask you this. Say we lock up Mark and Jon. Who is going to play the field for us and produce?

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:27 PM) KW took over after the 2000 season, Valentin was still a pretty good player. The Erstad/Garland trade happened after Erstad hit .258 with 9 homers and a pretty weak OBP. Garland was 22 years old, and its laughable you think Jerry Manuel ruined him. I think you buy Hawk's BS a little too much. I guess if your happy with 82 or 83 win seasons or finishing in 2nd or 3rd place almost every year, KW could be a hero. I like winning. Which to me means making the playoffs. You're right about the Erstad/Garland trade. Erstad was one year removed from a 240 hit season. My mistake. I didn't say Jerry Manual ruined Jon, I said he nearly ruined him. And maybe I did buy Hawk's bs a bit too much in the past, but I don't think it's entirely coincidence that Jon started thriving under Ozzie Guillen, a manager who gave him a chance to learn how to get out of his own jams. It's pretty impressive how he has come along in doing so, wouldn't you agree? Oh, and another thing. I like to win as well. And by no means has KW been infallible. But I'm not going to suggest his firing, that's for damn sure. Just curious, whom would you like to see replace him?

QUOTE(diegotony06 @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:23 PM) The Braves won their division I think 14 or 15 times in a row. To me that's what you judge a winning franchise on. They won a World Series just like us, but even though they haven't won another,they still have sustained a winning ORG. by winning their division. To compare us to the Braves isn't a good argument. They are far superior. Their Org. blows ours away. That's just a sillt argument there. The Braves run is probably the most impressive run in modern sports history. I still don't think many understand how that happened. I guess every other organization is a failure.

QUOTE(SadChiSoxFanOptimist @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:16 PM) This from Olney @ESPN: Michael (Dallas): Regarding the Dodgers, do you think Kemp is enough to pry Buehrle away? Is it worth if for LA? Thanks. Buster Olney: Michael: If the White Sox get Matt Kemp for Buehrle, that's a pretty good deal for a rent-a-player (for Chicago). Talked to about 10 people in the game over the last 24 hours and not one of them -- not one -- thinks the White Sox are making the right call by refusing to give Buehrle the no-trade clause. Given what the market is for pitching, four years and $56 million is an incredible bargain, and they should just give him the no-trade clause, or come up with some way around this sticking point (like guaranteeing a $5 million bonus if he's traded, or something like that). Again, this is not just about Mark. It's going to be the same story with Jon next year. $112 million and 4 years of NTC is a huge gamble to take.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jul 2, 2007 -> 01:05 PM) Considering KW's job before becoming GM, its laughable you would give him a break on an overrated farm system. He had Lee, Ordonez, Thomas, Crede, Valentin, Rowand, Buerhle, Garland, just to name a few players built into the system when he took over. Unless he gave them away, which he did with Garland when he traded him for a broken down Erstad only to luckily have the Angels heirarchy not approve the trade. With that talent base, the really were never in any danger of losing the 100+ games KC and Detroit seemed to flirt with almost every season. I didn't give him a break on an overrated farm system as Vice President of Player Development. I gave him a break as GM. He built the system that was rated highly. Unfortunately, nothing panned out. He was intelligent enough to trade much of it away as GM. He did have Lee/Maggs/Thomas/Buehrle. But Crede/Rowand/Garland didn't develop into anything until 2004 or so. Valentin sucked. Don't know why he was even mentioned. And Thomas was injured for nearly two full seasons and the majority of another during the 5 years Williams had him. The Garland trade came after Erstand had one of the most impressive seasons ever as a leadoff hitter and Jerry Manual had nearly ruined Jon Garland through his inept managing. He could have trusted in his farm system and continued with the "Kids can play" nonsense, and he didn't. He was aggressive, built up the rotation, and avoided the mistakes teams like Detroit and Kansas City continually made.