michelangelosmonkey

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 03:03 PM) Well. How many of those afformentioned picks were the #1 pick? Joe mauer was. So if we keep losing we get OUR Joe mauer. How about this list instead: #1 draft picks 1990 Chipper jones 1991 brien taylor 1992 Phil Nevin 1993 A-Rod 1994 Paul Wilson 1995 Darin Erstad 1996 Kris Benson 1997 Matt Anderson 1998 Pat Burrell 1999 Josh Hamilton 2000 Adrian Gonzalez 2001 Joe Mauer 2002 Bryan Bullington 2003 Delmon Young 2004 Matt Bush 2005 Justin Upton 2006 Luke hochevar 2007 David price I would say getting the number 1 pick greatly increases your chances of drafting an impact player moreso than any other position in the draft. As you point it out to me...it HAS been kind of a freakish year. Looks like 95 losses might get you the number one pick...when most years you need more like 105 loses. So yeah dumping may make sense in this year. Still...from your list of number ones overall you have 3 stars out of 12. PLus a couple of good players. I'd put post 2002 in the "unproven" box. Then you have: Joe Mauer career OPS .854 Adrian Gonzalez career OPS .830 Josh Hamilton--nothing yet Pat Bureel: career .848 Matt Anderson 15-7 5.2 ERA Kris Benson 68-73 4.4 ERA Darin Erstad--grinderstad...753 career ops Paul Wilson 40-58 4.86ERA Arod...superstar Phil Nevin career .815 OPS Brien Tayler--no appearance. Chipper Jones Star Go back to every #1 overall pick since 1965 and there are only THREE with career OPS over .900...Ken Griffey Jr, Arod and Chipper. And not a single pitcher with +20 wins over losses in his career...only a couple with 150 victories...maybe the best Andy Benes? Floyd Bannister? Seems like about once a decade you get a dream player. Seems just as likely to get him at #7 like Frank Thomas or, say Jake Peavey in the 15th round.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Use just the 90s so you don't have to bring up Joe Mauer. I like it. A franchise catcher is something I'd absolutely love to have. Ironically enough, he was the #1 pick. Come on. I used a ten year period. If you want to use an eleven year period...fine. They got Joe Mauer. So they were so bad that they drafted top ten for 8 of 11 years and added Joe Mauer with those high picks. I don't WANT to be horrible for 8 years so I can add one very good player. My point was, and remains if you add Joe Mauer, top 10 picks in the ML draft assure nothing. And winning meaningless games still feels good.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 09:37 AM) From my point of view, it's real simple....if we had lost one more game in 2002, we would have had the OPPORTUNITY to select Cole Hamels. Instead, the Phillies had a pick one spot higher, and they could take him, and we took Royce Ring. Winning is always a good thing. Rooting to lose so we move up a spot because we're terrible just has not proven to be a great stategy (in baseball). Everyone loves the Twins here...and the twins were horrible in the 90's and here's there top ten drafting: Year Overall pick PLayer 1991 3 David Mccarty 1994 8 Todd Walker 1996 2 Travis Lee 1997 9 Michael Cuddyer 1998 6 Ryan Mills 1999 5 BJ Garbe 2000 2 Adam Johnson That's 7 top ten picks in ten years...and the best is Cuddyer who's a RF with a career .790 OPS? It's SO unknowable...that I would rather have the brief happiness and hope of going into the off season with a 18-6 last 24.

QUOTE(The Critic @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 10:33 AM) Isn't it odd how something that made Harry lovable is now reviled when Hawk says "GET UP! STRETCH!!" for warning track flyballs? Not saying that you personally said that (I don't know your feelings on Hawk), but many people do seem to hate when he says that. I love Hawk. But I think he needs a good partner. I really liked when it was he and Paciorek...they were goofy. He and DJ was bad. Same with Singleton...because I think he bullies them. I think he and Steve Stone could be great. Still, there is a difference between being a kid and listening and being a man. Not sure if it was cub hatred...but by the time Harry went to the Cubs I was tired of his shtick. He seemed drunken buffoon by the end...though I suspect if you asked a Cubs fan that was 10 at the time they loved Harry like I did when I was ten.

QUOTE(Yossarian @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) Those 78, 79 and 80 teams were brutal, but Harry and Jimmy kept fan interest high. I never had so much "fun at the old ball park" as I did in those days. Until 05 of course. There were no rumors about St. Petersburg or Arizona. The AL did have the Sox ticketed to Seattle after the 75 season, and they surely would have moved there had not Veeck come to the rescue at the last possible moment. In 79 or 80 there were rumors that Veeck would sell to Marvin Davis who would then move the team to Denver. When it initially looked like Edward DeBartolo Sr. would get the club for the 81 season, there were brief rumors he wanted to move the team to New Orleans. I remember Harry Caray's interview with him in early 81 when he expressed enthusiasm about building a winner in Chicago. He did bring championships to the 49ers and the first Stanley Cup in Pittsburgh. The St. Petersburg thing didn't come up until the mid and late 80s. I never remember rumors about Arizona, and I don't think that was even a possibility of a team there until Colangelo put his group together in the mid and late 90s. The period from 1968-1980 produced only two winning seasons, but lots of fan interest, (if not always great attendance) and a carnival atmosphere at old Comiskey from 72 on. Today we're looking at an uncertain future at best, and we have a dreadful radio team, and a not so hot pair in the TV booth. Man...I did love Harry...as a kid every fly ball was to the warning track. And I also remember old Comisky with half the seats being obstructed view...still there was something romantic about it. But while you may have been having fun...I just never had any sense of hope that the team would be much better than last place. Bill Veeck couldn't afford anything. We signed no free agents and lost many. Attendance was crappy. From 75 to 80 they finished 5th, 6th, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 5th. Even the famed south side hitmen team of 77 (the third place finsh) finished a dozen games out. That 79 team Chet Lemon led the team with 17 homers. The 80 team it was Wayne Nordhagen with 15. And for a decade the Sox were the team everyone mentioned when talk was about a team moving.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 28, 2007 -> 12:11 AM) Great post. I cannot stand this nonsense about the Bartolo Colon deal and the Aj Pierzynski deal. Go to other team's message boards, and on EVERY one of them you will find their fans demanding their GM make a deal similar to those two. If the fans know it, you don't think the GM's recognize that? If anything, those two deals and the attention they have continually received has made it far less likely that another will occur. No GM wants to make a deal like that and get fleeced. And if we haven't seen the evidence of that in the last two years, I don't know what we've seen. As for Liriano, the key to his return is that the very pitch that made him so dominant is the same that caused his injury. That slider creates enormous stress on his elbow and obviously caused him to miss this entire season. When he returns, will he attempt to throw it? Will he throw a variation of it? Will he reinjure his arm again and again and again like Kerry Wood? To say he can return to duplicate or even at all closely replicate his 06' success is extraordinarily speculative at the very least. In terms of MichaelAngelosMonkey, he was not trying to claim that the White Sox have not been as lucky as any other team. What he was claiming is that you cannot praise the Twin's success as a skill, and at the same time chalk up all the White Sox' success as luck. Both have received plenty of luck within the last several years. What the Twins have done well over the past several years is put together amazing bullpens and tailor their ballclub to the Humphreydome. They have not produced an amazing number of solid homegrown position players, their success developing starting pitchers has been overstated, and they have continually been exposed in the postseason. Certainly their sustained success in this decade has been admirable, but basically, if things hold true this season, they will have won 1 postseason series while having the best starting pitcher in baseball and one of the best bullpens in baseball for the last 4-5 years. It's great and all that they have won division titles with a lower payroll, but let's not confuse their run with the Oakland A's of the early seventies. I think it's fairly clear that there are several issues within the White Sox organization which need to be addressed. One is certainly international scouting. Another is their refusal to wholeheartedly consider players represented by Scott Boras. Another is their philosophy of drafting low-risk pitchers. However, anyone who has watched baseball for any sustained period of time realizes how quickly things can change, especially when there is a little money that can be spent. Certainly this organization does some things better than they do others; however, I must say I have faith in their overall ability to position this team in a favorable spot for the next several years, despite how putrid the major league team has looked throughout this season. Thanks for the support, iamshack. I think the one thing we can all agree on is we are White Sox fans and want the team better. I fully support the position that our farm system has been disappointing. I remember in 2000 when we were voted farm system of the year by BA. And who came out of that mix? In fact here's a decade worth of our picks that made some impact in the majors...and I don't include long relievers or back up infielders. A team gets FIFTY picks a year and if you figure a team needs 20 real good players to compete...and a players career is five years. Well you ought to be adding four real good players a year: 1992: Crap 1993: PLacido Polanco 1994: ERic Gagne 1995: crap 1996: Crede/Chad Bradford 1997: Jeff Weaver 1998: Kip Wells, Aaron Rowand, Nate Robertson, Josh Fogg, Mark Buehrle 1999: crap 2000: crap 2001: Chris Young There's no all star team in THAT mix. 500 picks and only Buehrle, Rowand and Crede made their impact with the Sox. But let's look at a team everyone said was a super drafting team...the Expos: 92: Jose Vidro 93: Brad Fulmer 94: Geoff Blum 95: Michael Barret 96: Milton Bradly 97-crap 98-Brad Wilkerson 99--Brandon Phillips 00--Grady Sizemore, Cliff Lee, Jason Bay 01--crap 02--crap That's a lot closer to an allstar team...but it's only 10 players. And the Yankees who can afford the best of everything: 92: Derek Jeter 93: Chad Moeller 95: Mike Lowell, Casey Blake 96: Eric Milton, Nick Johnson 97: Mark Prior. So...that basically NOTHING since 1992. And the Twins? 92-nothing 93: Torri Hunter, Jason Varitek, Javier Valentin, Alex Cora, Danny Kolb 94: Todd Walker, AJ, David Dellucci, Corey Koskie 95: Mark Redmon, Doug Mientkiewitz 96: Travis Lee, Jacques Jones, Chad Moller, Mike Lamb, Josh bard 97: Michael Cuddyer, Matt Lecroy, Nick Punto 98:crap 99:Morneau 00: crap 01: Mauer 02: Crap The twins did something right in the mid 90's. That's 19 pretty good major leaguers in a 5 year span. That's your core of grinderstads. But then what happened? It's clear you need to concurrently take many paths to build a championship team. Drafting better is important...but it's not the only thing. One could certainly argue that the sole pick of Jeter has served the yankees as well as all the Expos draft picks. So the Sox need to be smart developing Latin American talent. Going after Japanese players. Trading. Free agent bargains (Dye) and big time free agents. Kenny's approach brought one world series championship. Let's see if he's smart enough to cobble together another.

Man you young-uns! This year doesn't even begin to measure the pain of the late 70's. There was a bit of a high with the hitmen of 77...but Veeck was trying to run the team on a shoestring...you'd check the attendance figures before the score. One of those seasons his wife designed the uniforms. Disco demolition. The team was a national laughing stock. I'd say 78 or 79...both last place finishes...one year they let Richie Zisk and Oscar Gamble go because they couldn't afford them. The next they let Steve Stone and Wilbur Wood go. They traded fan favorite Eric Soderholm to get Ed Farmer...thus beginning the thread that would make him our broadcaster. And everyday in the Trib the story was "Will Sox move to St. Petersburg" "Will Sox move to Arizona". A horrible team. horrible talent. And the fear that I would forever after lose my team. Come on...WS, 90 win season, disappointing season. We've got a lot of talent and some prospects in the minors and Kenny Williams who could do anything in the off season.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 03:09 PM) I hope you know that you are talking to (probably) the biggest Floyd fan on the site, and there is still no way you can compare Garza to Floyd. Garza has a plus fastball, a plus curve, and I'm sure he has a 2 seamer and/or a change in there as well which is adequate. I'm not sure if Floyd has anything besides a sinker and a curve; those two pitches can someday make him into a Jake Westbrook type starter, but you aren't ever going to depend upon that to be atop your rotation. Garza's ceiling is higher than Gio's, and the only arm within the organization making under 7 digits a year that has a shot at being as good as Garza is De Los Santos, and he's in W-S. On Buehrle, B-P hates him because he doesn't have the outstanding peripherals they look for. However, Buehrle is good because of his control, plain and simple; not necessarily BB control, but rather just control of the strike zone. When he is getting groundballs and not leaving the ball right over the plate, he succeeds. When he gets the ball up, and he leaves it over the middle of the plate, he puts up an ERA of 6 and a half for half a season. He's not just good because he's a winner; he's good largely because of location. Oh, and on Haeger; Jared Fernandez has 4 career wins, Roger Clemens has 353. I can play that game too. OK...it looks like me against the board. You guys sure don't treat dissenting newbies with any patience. You say there's no one that can compare with Garza because of his stuff. Gavin Floyd was the #4 overall pick in the 2001 draft because of his great stuff. He sure hasn't harnassed it yet but somewhere inside him... Jake Peavey was a 15th round selection but somewhere between everyone saying he didn't have the stuff to draft high...he found stuff. There's just absolutely no way that you can make the claim that there is only one guy in the Sox organization that has a "a shot at being as good as Garza." It's is entirely possible that Garza won't be any good...and then we have a whole SYSTEM full of guys that could be as good. You could say that there is no one in the Sox organization outside of DLS that could be as good as Santana...and then I would agree. But until Garza is Santana...well he's just another 24 year old with a 5-10 record. As for Haeger...man he's a 24 year old coming very close to mastering the knuckleball. To write him off completely is just wrong.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 02:46 PM) Yeah, I'd say you "slightly skimmed over it". 2 runs is a hell of a difference, a hell of a lot more than a few ticks on the win/loss record. Even in Garza's BAD stretches he's proven to be better than Floyd. There's also a slight difference between having one good start surrounded by several starts where he got lit up like a Christmas tree and stringing together seven starts with allowing fewer than 3 runs. Also, they're not both 24, Garza is essentially a year younger, and has far less experience in pro baseball, yet has put up far better numbers thus far. He also has MUCH better stuff than Floyd, there's a slight difference between throwing in the mid-to-high 90's with a solid breaking ball and throwing in the low 90's with an inconsistent one. My bad, I didn't realize that by "another Santana" you meant another freakishly good pitcher and not just another capable starter that'll win a lot of ball games. I didn't realize that a team had to produce 3 Cy Young winners to be good at scouting. When evaluating two pitchers, wins basically are irrelevant. What team you play on can have a tremedous effect on your record. The other guys on your team have to score runs and the bullpen has to hold the lead once you leave. That's entirely out of your control and can vary greatly from year to year. Buehrle is likely to have a similar record this year as last year despite having an ERA that's about a run and a half lower. THAT's why comparing records doesn't have a whole lot of value, at least certainly not as a determining factor. Why does Brian Taylor even matter? He's a guy that got hurt before he had a chance to do anything. Matt Garza is already at the major league level and is AT WORST a league average starter right now. I really don't see how that's relevant. Just because they MIGHT get hurt doesn't mean you can totally dismiss their talent and lump them in with the other masses of guys that haven't done anything in the majors and probably won't like Floyd and Haegar. I don't know why we are fighting. You would be an excellent agent for Garza. You are clearly a knowledgeable baseball fan. I'm just saying, as the moneyball guys out there say, there's no such thing as a pitching prospect. Guys can get major leaguers out or they can't. There have been a million flairouts like Brien Tayler...because of injury, because of a lack of confidence, or control, or whatever...guys with fantasitc potential. There are a million guys like Ruffcorn and Jason Bere who tease you and then fail. I'm not totally dismissing Garza...but you are totally dismissing Floyd based on a few innings pitched at the majors. You totally dismiss a knuckleballer like Haeger who is WAY ahead of TIm Wakefields development with the pitch. I claim no universal knowledge...it is everyone else here...that is certain Garza will be an above average ML pitcher. All I'm saying is, yeah, maybe. Maybe FLoyd

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 02:42 PM) Well in 2006 Randy Johnson won 17 games. Granted he was giving up 5 runs a game. But he won 17 games. I wonder if that was because he had an awsome offense behind him. Who is better the pitcher that has a 3.05 ERA and 10 wins because his offense is anemic, or the 17 game winner with the 5.00 ERA and his offense is the yankees. Obviously the guy with the 3.05 ERA. My point is that W-L is not completely irrelevant. Randy Johnson had about 16 quality starts last year...and about 16 where he was horrid. Ozzie has left pitchers in, like Garland, to give up 10 runs in 3 innings when he didn't have it...and it destroys his ERA but only goes for 1 loss. To support ERA, and K/Ip or K/BB or 15 other measures over wins is fine. But to throw out wins as completely irrelevant I think is wrong too. Over the years when they list "top young pitchers" no publication EVER includes Buehrle...though Buehrle has more victories than almost any of them. Winning is a skill too.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 02:43 PM) Yeah... Just a guy... here's a list of all the pitchers in the AL (since 2004) to throw 700+ innings with an ERA+ over 100... 8 f***ing "guys" How can we deify Ryan and condemn Williams? Did I bring up Williams? No, but keep calling me the debating equivalent of a Cubs fan while you run around changing the subject. You wrote this: Here is another list... Eggs Broccoli Cajun seasoning Butter Pepsi Chicken livers Broccoli = your post. Not worth eating. What kind of debate is that? We can argue like intelligent civil people (Sox fans)...or we can call names(Cub fans). If you disagree with me...fine...point out my flaws. But to say, in effect, "you are so stupid I won't even comment" ???? And no...YOU didn't bring up Kenny Williams but the premise "Twins better than the White Sox each of the next three years" implies the Twins GM is smarter than the Sox GM...especially in the light of the fact the Sox can spend more than the Twins. You actually are raising my respect for Carlos Silva. Curious that a guy that good on a perenial playoff team, with a fantastic bullpen has such a low winning percent. What happens to his position if the innings is lowered to 600?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) You totally missed the point. We're not arguing which one is going to win the WS next, we're arguing who's going to have the better record over the next 3 years, where that info is ENTIRELY RELEVANT. I'm choosing to not even dignify the rest with a response, since it is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, ESPECIALLY since Santana is still around for AT LEAST the first of those three years. OK, I will agree that my point may have been misleading. The argument was the Twins will win more games than the White Sox in EACH of the next three years. And in the past the Twins have frequently had a better record than the White Sox...I will grant that point. But we are talking about the FUTURE. And the argument that the Twins have been better many years in the past I say is because of Santana...not because of brilliant talent evaluation. If someone can tell me the Twins will find $25 million per year to pay Santana...then my case weakens. But outside of Santana who is unique...the Twins procurement of talent is no more impressive than what Ken Williams did in putting together two 90 win seasons in the last three for the Sox.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 01:24 PM) Why are you using W-L as an indicator of success? Why do you just slightly skim over the fact that Garza's career ERA is 4.58 while Floyd's is 6.98? Why are you essentially saying Homer Bailey, Philip Hughes, and Charlie Haeger are equals? Look at the Twins bullpen over the last 5 years; you'll see roughly 10-12 different names putting together very good years for them, and then go elsewhere and perform mediocrely. Is that luck? Look at the Twins rotation, and you'll almost always see 5 effective starters without spending $40-50 mill to do so. Is that luck? Now compare that to the White Sox, and you'll see why people are praising the Twins and are critical of the Sox. Look I didn't slightly skim over it...I pointed it out and it was against my argument. BUT...I've always been slightly irritated at the Baseball Prospectus crowd for completly ignoring W-L as if it is irrelevant. Buehrle has never gotten the credit I think he deserves because his K rate is so low...the strongest indicator for him that he's going to win is...he keeps winning. At some point knowing how to win a game has some relevance. But I'm NOT saying Floyd is going to be good. I'm saying it CAN'T be said that Garza will not only be good but as good as Santana. In Garza's first 15 innings this year he gave up 0 ER. The next 31 innings he gave up 17 runs. Both pitchers are 24. Both have good stuff. Both have shown glimpses of being able to be dominating. Both have been hit hard as well. Floyd's K to W rate this year is 3 to 1. Garza about 2.5 to 1. I know this will open me up to more name calling because people love Garza and hate Floyd...but until the guy starts winning more consistently...he's just another young pitcher that might or might not be good. And yes...that goes for Bailey and Hughes and Haeger. Tim Wakefield has 166 career wins and Brien Taylor has 0. Still I will say that you make a helluva point with the Twins bullpen. Man they keep turning these guys up. So lucky with Santana and skillful with the bullpen.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 12:08 AM) Let's see, the Sox had one very good year where they managed to get a title and another division crown 7 years ago, the Twins had 4 division titles in recent memory. I don't really see the great disparity in difference of success there, other than consistency on their side. The 7 games in the standings this year would also seem to tilt in their favor. Plus several key guys on the Sox are starting to show signs of age, which isn't really an issue for the Twins (outside of possibly Hunter if he stays). Again, consistency is a major factor in why I would say the Twins have been better at consistently producing talent than the Sox. How many major league contributors has their system produced since 2000? The answer is not a whole lot. In case you didn't notice, before he got hurt Liriano was already starting to produce like another Santana. Heck, he had a lower ERA at the time. He was quite simply one of the most dominant starters in the game and it was still only the first time he really had a full time starting spot. Given time, Garza could conceivably be another. He's already shown some flashes and he's still very young. Much as I like Gio and DLS, it's going to be A WHILE before the Sox could say the same thing. Um, didn't I say virtually the EXACT SAME THING in my last post? Sure, there was some luck in their timing and you can't always get all your targets, but in that case they did and they've panned out. I'd really like to see more of that from the Sox in the near future, though I'm not sure how many of their guys can bring back significant talent. Besides, I don't really see how you're considering "luck" on both sides. You're willing to dismiss the Twins' 4 division titles and consistent ability to finish ahead of us in recent history as luck, but yet you're touting the ONE time the Sox have a really good team in recent memory as an example of why this is a successful organization that performs as well/better than the Twins. I really don't get that. Liriano at this point is nothing. He's another Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Mark Fidyrich, Jason Jennings...appears on the scene as a very young pitcher...looks unbelievably dominant...then blows out his arm and is never the same. Maybe he'll come back and be great...then you have two data points for the Twins...hardly at trend. As for Garza showing flashes...man did you see Floyd pitch last month? That guy looks like the real deal (except the other times when he got globbered). There is absolutely no way that you can sing the praises of Garza over Floyd...because neither has proven anything in the majors. Each has pitched roughly a 100 innings. Floyd has an 8-7 major league record. Garza a 5-10 record. Floyd has a worse ERA by two runs. But so little data to point to for either. If I was here on this website singing the praises of the #4 pick in the draft from a few years ago...who's won more than he's lost in his major league career...and say Floyd could "conceivably be another Santana" as you did about Garza? I'd be banned. Twins are ok...just not to be worshipped. Sox are ok...because we LOVE them. They won the World Series two years ago. And maybe next year when Floyd and Danks and Gio are dominating...well it COULD happen.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 12:39 AM) Since when is 4 division titles no evidence? Did I miss something here? 4>2, right? I love that we won a ring, but we're talking about putting up a better record than the Twins for THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS in this particular discussion, with a team that clearly needs a shot in the arm and some younger talent. They've finished with a better record than us 5 of the last 6 years and it looks like they're going to make it 6 out of 7 barring a reasonably big change in the standings. They've also done it with a fairly low payroll to this point, which may change with a new stadium in the near future. I'd say that's some reasonably strong evidence, or at least more worthwhile than what happened in that one year that was the exception. If you go back I said it was possible, but the Sox have some work to do. I don't dislike Kenny, and he's done some solid things, but the team has some problems. We're 29th in runs scored and 28th in ERA, His payroll is already pretty bloated, he has some holes that we can all see that need to be filled, and he doesn't have a whole lot of tradeable assets, several of which would just create another hole. Sure, this has been a pretty bad year for injuries/underacheiving, but that doesn't cover everything. First of all perhaps we have a definitional problem. The goal of baseball is to win the WS. It's not to win more games than the TWins or win more games than the Cubs. It's to win more games than EVERYONE. So in my world the score is Sox 1 Twins 0 (I'm counting last 15 years...current administrations). There IS a value in being a fan of a team that wins consistently. But my point is that Santana is not an example of the Twins genius but a sole data point that has changed their curve. In four years...including three division titles Santana was 12-3, 20-6, 16-7 and 19-6. Santana hasn't been good, he's been amazing. In 1990 the GB Packers were a moribund franchise. They'd been a losing team for twenty years. That season they went 6-10. The next year they were 4-12. They started the next season 0-2 and were losing to Cincinnati, an equally awful team at the time, by two touchdowns. Then the Packer quaterback got hurt and this 2nd round draft pick (meaning every other team in the NFL had passed him up at least once), Brett Favre stepped in...and the Packers won that game on a last second pass and went 9-4 the rest of that first season...and then over the next dozen years the Packers went to the playoffs ten times and the Superbowl twice. Is this evidence that the Packers have been a brilliant organization over the last dozen years? Or that certain players are super stars and elevate their teams. God bless the Twins for finding Santana. But oustide of Santana those were very average teams. if you take him off that team in the last six years they finish behind the Sox ever year. And I think a true ACE goes way beyond the value of his won-loss record. Because when you have that 4 game losing streak the team KNOWS they are going to win when Santana pitches. Takes a lot of stress off the other guys. Look at the dominant pitchers in our lifetimes...Roger Clemens went to the playoffs 11 times. Maddux 12 times. Randy Johnson 7 times. Steve Carlton 8 times. Doc Gooden 5 times. Pedro Martinez 4 times....for a Boston franchise that never went. I like the Twins. I think what they've done with a low payroll is something to study...but with Santana off the team in 14 months? I'm not ready to bet on their future over the Sox. At least the Sox can fall back on a payroll double the Twins. Which I recognize is unfair but life is unfair

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 04:18 PM) You do realize that pro and amateur scouting are two separate entities, right? The Twins have demonstrated that they have perhaps the best pro scouting in the game. You make fun of Carlos silva, but he's given them over 700 innings of above average starting pitching for less than the cost of 1 year of Eric Milton, the player he was traded for. That's brilliant scouting. I don't think Alexi Casilla will amount to anything special, but acquiring a slick fielding 2B on the cheap for a LOOGY with a WHIP over 1.5 is another great move. Add in the Santana, Liriano, and Nathan thefts, and you've got yourself a more than solid core simply by identifying and trading for other franchises undervalued spare parts... (KW tried to do the same thing in acquiring Richar, but using Cunningham instead of a high salaried player on the ML roster was a mistake) You don't trade with Terry Ryan and come out on top often. He probably knows your minor leagues/cheap players better than you do... Put down the hyperbole gun. Carlos Silva trade was BRILLIANT scouting? Carlos Silva has been 43-43 on a team with a better than .500 record. His ERA has been 4.30 on a team with a team ERA of under 4.00. He's a guy. I don't want to undervalue just-a-guy...I remember the White Sox dreaming of getting a fifth starter in 2001. But to say the Twins refused to pay Eric Milton a fortune (sane decision) and traded him for J-a-g is brilliant scouting? Again...how can we deify Terry Ryan and condemn Kenny Williams? Didn't KW get Freddie Garcia for a bunch of overvalued prospects? Didn't he find Contreas and El Duque in the Yankee's dumpster? Didn't he get Iguchi for next to nothing from Japan? Jermaine Dye if I remember properly was a blue light special at Kmart? I will HAPPILY say that the Twins are a worthy opponent in accumulating talent. But to look into the future and say the Sox are doomed and the Twins are great because of their superiority in evaluation of major and minor talent? There is no evidence in the past to confirm that and some evidence (world series ring) to prove Kenny is smarter than Terry.

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 04:13 PM) Care to go over the Sox draft record of first rounders for the last 15 years? That's just an awful line of logic, how many would the Sox have without Konerko? We got him for less than value too, guess we got lucky. Would we have won in 2005 without Garland? We got him for Matt Karchner, guess we got lucky. Oh, and some guy we took in the 38th round turned into our team ace. Guess our drafting is just that brilliant. You can't really have it both ways. There's a little luck involved with everything, but it's pretty clear that they have above average talent evaluators. And by the way, he didn't have that devastating changeup when they signed him, he picked it up when he was in their system. Oh, and Johan Santana wasn't even a full-time starter in 2003 and 2004 when they won division titles. He threw 108 1/3 innings in 2003 when they beat us by 4 games and 158 1/3 in 2004 when they beat us by 9 games. And if you want to minimize the Twins' division titles because "the division was weak", what does that say about the Sox over the same stretch? Mine is an awful line of logic? Listen...in this thread someone put forward the premise that the Twins have this brilliant system of talent evaluators and therefore they will finish better than the Sox in the next three years. I'm saying...where's the proof? Seems like Kenny WIlliams has put together a world series champion and the Twins, with the best pitcher in baseball, haven't been particularly close. And it is not ME that is inconsistent on the luck/skill determination. I have not elevated the Twins nor the White Sox into a pantheon of brilliant organizations. I think we are wrong to deify the Twins while denegrating the Sox...but I would make the same argument if we were burying the Twins and praising the Sox. I happen to think the White Sox were extraordinarily lucky to have Buehrle develop into a very good pitcher. I think the Twins were even luckier having Santana become the best pitcher in baseball. To deny luck...to say the Twins have a special prediliction for determining future allstar pitchers from 20 year old pitchers beyond what others could see...where are their other Santana's? If the Sox could see something in 20 year old soft throwing lefties...where are their other Buehrle's? It's not all luck...you target a first basemen...and you use a high draft pick or you trade a key part to get a young kid and with a bit of hard work and good evaluation and player development...you get Konerko. But if you are lucky you get Albert Pujols.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 03:04 PM) Luck had nothing to do with it. They identified the top unprotected player in all of baseball, and convinced the Marlins to pass him over for the "second best" unprotected player baseball and some cash. They kept him on the roster for the year despite his ineffectiveness because they saw the long-term potential, and would lose him back to the Astros if they had taken him off the 25-man roster. First of all, it wasn't a deadline deal. Second, it wasn't luck again. Liriano was another high powered lefty in the low minors who had been injured enough for Sabean to let him escape. Nathan was a good young pitcher who already had success in the majors. With his stuff, Sabean was an idiot for thinking he had reached his potential. Bonser, the other arm in the deal, was considered the prize of the deal by most. The Twins new exactly what they were getting in both of those deals; tons of potential. Alot of things had to go right for those players to reach that potential, but it's f***ing naive to call them lucky because they were able to identify (and acquire) some of the highest-ceilinged talent in baseball. So either I'm F'ing naive or assinine to say the Twins were lucky? These brilliant Twins...these flawless visionaries who spotted Travis Lee and nabbed him with the #2 overall pick in the 96 draft. Then laughed as Ryan Mills fell to them at the #6 pick in the 98 draft. BJ Garbe at #5 in the 99 draft. Adam Johnson with the #2 overall pick in the 2000 draft. As i tried to point out earlier in this thread...getting a 20 year old power pitcher is a total crap shoot. If the system is...acquire a whole bunch of young power pitchers...again...what has that system gotten them? A couple of division titles when the Central was weak in the early 00's. And one playoff series victory in 15 years. So for nearly a decade the Twins drafted in the top 10 and were able to see things in 20 year old power pitchers that other organizations couldn't (a skill, not luck) and...at the start of the year the Twins staff consisted of Sidney Ponson, Carlos Silva and Ramon Ortiz? Shame on me for suggesting they hit lighting in a bottle...and remind me...how many divisions does Minnesota win without Santana?

QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Aug 22, 2007 -> 01:04 PM) That's actually not THAT inconceivable. They're likely to lose Santana and could lose Hunter and/or Nathan as well. Those are some pretty key pieces. There are A LOT of wildcards though. They'll still have Morneau and Mauer for a while, that's a good start, and they always seem to find enough scrappy guys to make the offense work around them. As for the pitching, Garza looks like a keeper, Slowey has some ability, and then of course there's Liriano. You can have a franchise core a lot worse than that, though there are some "ifs" on the pitching side. Then of course there are the Sox, who look like they need some additions to get back to where they were the last two years. I could see it, but I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it. 2008 would be the key, the Sox would have to close that gap while they still have Santana. Plus they have a MUCH better track record of finding replacements within their system than the Sox do. I'm not sure where all the Twins love comes from. ...like they are this genius organization. From 1994 to 2001...eight year period...they draftred in the top ten 7 times, including a number one overall and twice number two overall. They were a BAD team for most of a decade. Eight years ago they got lucky trading for a 20 year old single A pitcher Santana who had an 8-8 record and a 5 ERA. And lucky again getting Liriano and Nathan at a deadline deal. And all this high drafting and two real lucky trades has gotten them what? They've won one 5-game playoff series in the last 15 years. And how about them RELEASING David Ortiz so they wouldn't have to pay him arbitration money work out for them? Morneau and Mauer are good players...but when Santana leaves??? Convince me that Boof Bonser, Matt Garza, Scott Baker and Liriano are going to be better major league pitchers than Gio, Danks, De los Santos and Floyd? I wouldn't trade Danks for anyone of them.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 10:52 PM) Lets make one thing clear...in that draft there were only a handful of pitchers that would have even came close to demanding that type of bonus. I'm not saying you take Matt Ginter, who never would have asekd for anything close to 5 mill and take him. However, if a guy is head and shoulders better than everyone else than you better freaking take him. Fine...we'll use your rules. But there is no such thing as the consensus best pitcher...so let's call it the top four pitchers selected in each draft as the one's MOST likely to be great pitchers. Here's your list from 1996-2002. That's 7 years, 28 pitchers and they are: Mark Prior, Dewon Brazelton, Gavin Floyd, Josh Karp, Bryan Bullington, Chris Gruler, Adam Loewen, Clint Everts, Mark Mulder, Jeff Austin, Ryan Mills, JM Gold, Matt Anderson, Jason Grilli, Geoff Goetz, Dan Reichert, Kris Benson, Braden Looper, Billy Koch, John Patterson, Josh Becket, Josh Girdley, Kyle Snyder, Robert Bradley, Adam Johnson, Mike Stodolka, Justin Wayne, Matt Harrington. Every one of those guys was a Porcello...and Mulder, Beckett...and a whole lot of nothing. Two for 28. That's a careless way to spend $5 mill.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 10:26 PM) Here is another list... Eggs Broccoli Cajun seasoning Butter Pepsi Chicken livers Broccoli = your post. Not worth eating. You sir debate like a Cubs fan.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 07:03 PM) Not to mention that $5M is a huge red herring considering Borchard set the bonus record at the time at $5M, which is still well above average for a first round pick 7 years later. Oh and nevermind that the 2000 draft is now considered one of the worst all-time. Heck, just look at the 2005 first round. 6 of the top 7 position players selected are already in the show. Jay Bruce is waiting in the wings. It's already more productive than the 2000 first round and it's barely two years later.... QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 06:50 PM) A 4.6 era will get you more than 5 mill a year on the fa market right now. Man that has completely missed the point. People are talking about how we should be thrilled to pay some 1st round pick $5 mill because of his potential. I say...here's the 2000 draft and the 16 first round pitchers and COMBINED their worth maybe $5 mill. That means in this draft you have a 1/16th chance of landing a guy worth $5 mill. As for me "picking" 2000 because it was a terrible draft. You CANNOT use a draft from two years ago and say Joba is GOING to be great...because it's still maybe. Let's use 1999...and don't make me keep picking these out: 1: Josh Hamilton 2: Josh Becket 6: Josh Girdley 7 Kyle Snyder 8 Robert Bradley 9: Barry Zito 10 Ben Sheets 12: Brett Myers 13 Mike Paradis 14 Ty Howington 15 Jason Strumm 16 Jason Jennings 18 Richard Stahl 22: Matt Ginter 24: Kurt Ainsworth 25 Bob MacDougal 26 Ben Christensen 27: David Walling 28 GErik Baxter 29: Omar Ortiz 30: Chance Caple That's 21 pitchers. Zito's 111-74. Ben Sheets 71-73. Beckett 72-50. Jason Jennings 60-64. Which of these guys is better than Buehrle? MLB drafting ESPECIALLY of pitchers is a wild longshot. Not worth $5 mill that Detroit is giving Porcella...Porcello=Josh Hamilton.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Aug 20, 2007 -> 04:40 PM) Boof Bonser is a bust? HE's 26, 12-16 lifetime with an ERA of 4.6. Not much of a return on your $5 million from seven years before. Adam Wainwright 13-10. And that's if you get to hand pick your pick from the best pitchers of that draft. I'm not saying drafting is pointless. I'm saying: Jake Peavy 15th round Roy Oswald 23rd round Mark Buehrle 38th round Santana, Zambrano--not in draft Brandon Webb--8th round Brad Penny--5th round. I'm not saying 1st round is worthless...I'm saying it's hardly a guarantee that these guys will be any good. Go look at what they said about those guys in 2007. Same what they are saying about Porcella...nobody knows...so we shouldn't be slamming the Sox because they were SMART not to pay $5 million for this crap shoot.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 09:39 PM) As do people speculating that this franchise has been fistf***ed because we passed over Porcello. The thing everyone here forgets is the baseball draft is NOT the NFL or NBA draft. First round picks are overrated. I chose the 2000 draft because it was a round number and it was long enough ago that people couldn't use words like "best potential in all the minor leagues". If you were drafed seven years ago you are either a stud pitcher or a bust...here goes: Pitchers: 2nd pick overall Adam Johnson Twins 4th Mike Stodolka KC 5th Justin Wayne, Expos 7th: Matt Harringon Rockies 8th Mat Wheatland Tigers 9th Mark Philips Padres 10 Joe Torres Angels. 14 Beau Hale Orioles 16 Billy Traber Mets 17 Ben Diggins Dodgers 19 Sean Burnett Pirates 20 Chris Bootcheck Angels 21 John Bonser Giants 22 Phil Dmatrait Red Sox 24 Blake Williams Cardinals 29 Adam Wainwright Braves. There you go...16 FIRST ROUND pitchers. We give each of them $5 million dollars...buy up the damn 2000 draft...corner the market on A1 pitching prospects. And what do we have for that? A bunch of nobodies. Here's Jon Sickles bragging about these great young pitchers back when they were drafted: http://espn.go.com/mlb/draft00/s/2000/0605/569167.html. $10 million a year for a 12-12 innings eater is WAY better than $5 million spent on Mr. Porcella. Maybe Porcella will be great or maybe he will be Mike Stodolka.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Aug 8, 2007 -> 01:29 PM) Jeter gets his clutch reputation because he has had more opportunities to come through in the clutch than almost any other player in the history of the game. It isn't the percentage that he is successful that he gets his clutch moniker from, unfortunately. It's because the number of times he has been successful, a result of him having had so many chances, resonates in the minds of people. He's not that clutch. He's just had more chances to be remembered. Yeah I think that was mostly my point. If you are a great hitter you are a great hitter in the first inning and the fifth inning and the seventh inning. The stupid stats guys will say "in the eighth inning of games on the west coast against left handed power pitchers he's only a career .111 hitter" then you find out that means he's 1 for 9. Which is meaningless because it's two few data points in a game where 200 data points doesn't mean a lot. The casual fan will say, he's clutch because "I remember a game I went to in 2003 and he hit a homer in the 9th with two outs". But we the proud, the elite, the soxtalk gang should know better. Thome is not a good hitter, he is a GREAT hitter. Our biggest problem with him is keeping him healthy