michelangelosmonkey

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 05:29 PM) And the White Sox had the 5th pick. I can understand why some here want the Sox to lose, but I still want victories. This draft pick probably won't be able to really help for a least a couple of years, maybe more. Another month of constant losing is another month where the core of the team is going to forget how to win. Losing breeds more losing. Yeah but when you can get a high school catcher of Kurt Brown's potential...

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:48 PM) Wait, Joe Mauer isn't a star? Apparently great defensive catchers with career .394 OBPs are growing on trees these days... First of all we have to set the "Star" level someplace. .900 OPS seems like a nice dividing line. And Mauer's now had three full seasons in the majors...with OPS of .783, .936 and .807. And injured a lot. Last year he was a Star. The other two years...good. Using your definition...why is Aaron Rowand not a star. And by the way...Mike Piazza...career .924 OPS. 62nd round.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:32 PM) I cant remember what thread it was in, but someone posted that the #1 pick is something like 30 percent more effective for selecting an impact MLB player that the 2nd pick. I wish I could find that post. Well I'm not sure what the meaning of 30% is. Its not like there's a million data points. 3 hitters over .900 OPS in the first pick in the 40 years of the draft. 0 in the second pick. But in the second pick you have JR richards, Mark Mulder, Bill Gullikson and Josh Beckett with more than 20 wins than loses...versus 0 in the first pick. So we can save conclusively #2 picks are better pitchers and #1 better hitters??? The draft is a crap shoot...#1 pick, #2 pick, #500 pick. Is Sheffield, Bonds, Jeter worse than Jones, A-rod, Junior? The #6 guys.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:36 PM) It's pretty simple really, the #1>#2-#500 and there's no getting around it. The #1 pick is the best pick because you can take who ever you want, anyone, with the #2 pick you're limited. There's one less player you can take, with the 8th pick you're even more limited. It's not even about how often the #1 pick is effective, it's really as simple as taking the player believed to be the most talented player in the draft. He's yours with the #1 pick but may not be there when you pick at #2. But this says losing is completely benign. There's 23 games left. 4+ starts per starter. Suppose Jose Contreas goes 4-0. Is that meaningless? Supposed Floyd goes 4-0...meaningless? Richar gets hot, or Josh Fields hits 6 more homers. If the team goes 19-4 with a handful of good things happening...that's better than going 4-19...irrespective of draft pick. I wouldn't be playing Erstad over Owens if he gives us a better chance to win...because what's the point of that. And I wouldn't root for Richar and Fields and Owens and Floyd and Contreas to suck...because given the choices I'd rather have hope. Now if you can create a scenario where we lose every game with Meyers giving up 5 runs in the 8th and Uribe committing 5 errors. Fine. But to damn the team for a slightly better chance at hitting on a star is just wrong.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) Hell, just in a 4 year span the #1 overall pick produced possibly the greatest offensive 3B the game has ever seen (Jones does have the highest OPS for a 3B , though I'm sure Schmidt would get the majority of the votes) and quite possibly the best player to every play the game. My point is you can't cherry pick. Chipper Jones...superstar. Arod...superstar. Junior...Superstar. Three .900 OPS guys in 40 years. Then some guys. Sure 3 is good...but its no sure thing.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:07 PM) I barely watched either game so I didn't really have any feelings either way but I suppose the loss made me feel better than the win since the loss can only help this team in the long run and the win will do absolutely nothing. Having the #1 pick would allow for the Sox to take their guy, they can draft the player who they feel is the absolute best player in the draft. If there's someone that a scout or KW has fallen in love with and they think he's the balls then they can take him, no one can stop them. Picking up an extra meanings 7 wins at the end of a miserable season and pushing the draft pick back to #8 would only limit the White Sox's draft flexibility. Flexibility can only be a good thing IMO. I couldn't care less about past top 3-5 picks, the Sox having the ability to take their guy, someone who people feel is the most talented player in the draft sounds pretty damn good to me. I've already surrendured on this...as I pointed out earlier...I wasn't watching very closely either...and the Sox are real close to the #1 overall pick because they need not be abysmal this year. 95 losses versus 105 losses...THIS year. But to get a whiff at #1 overall and it means losing 105? I don't ever want that because I think its still not a sure thing. Though yes, MORE of a sure thing.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 04:06 PM) Josh Hamilton is one of the front runners for NL ROY. I would say he was a good, but very sidetracked pick. Delmon Young is looking to be a pretty good player, and I would gladly take a player like him. Most importantly, which you missed in your post, is that the #1 pick is much more frequently an impact player over the rest of the top 5 and top 10 picks. Josh Hamilton has had a very good 282 at bats. At 22, playing shortstop, Juan Uribe in 273 at bats had an .850 OPS. It's way too early to make a judgement on Hamilton...at 26. It would be fun to have Delmon Young in the system. But Chris Young is every bit as intriguing a CF prospect and he was drafted in the 15th round. And It's not MUCH more frequently...it's more frequently. And you'd probably be better off trading #1 overall pick for a teams 10-30th rounds.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 03:44 PM) What's the downside to losing? On Saturday the Sox lost 7-0. On Sunday they won 8-0. Tell me you didn't feel better? And the number of superstars at, say #5 since 1965...Mark Teixeira, JD Drew, Vernon Wells, Jack McDowell, Dwight Gooden, Dale Murphy. Or #6...Rocco Baldelli, Derek Jeter, Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, Andy Van Slyke...is not wildly worse than the group at #1 over all. Winning makes me feel good and I think losing doesn't particularly ensure anything. In the NFL being worst ensures you the best Quarterback in the draft (Carson Palmer, Peyton Manning, Michael Vick in the last ten years) and an easier schedule.

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.