CyAcosta41

Kenny? Waiting? Man, oh man, if he's learned a little patience ... if he won't be the impatient "must acquire target ... ugh ... must make deal" GM that many other GMs seem to toy with ... if he now understands to use leverage, create his market, and play his chips (rather than to BE played) ... then his smarts and aggressiveness might start benefiting the Sox in the kind of sustained and long-term way that many of us had been actively hoping for. 4-6 weeks from now, one Gavin Floyd just MIGHT be the last best pitcher standing for increasingly desperate pitching starved contenders. And if the suitors aren't willing to pay a LOT, then if the Sox are out of it come trading deadline, and IF Gavin continues to be Gavin, then a team in win-NOW mode would have to consider paying what it takes to get a pitcher of that quality/durability, ESPECIALLY when they can spin to their fans that they're paying to get someone who can help them get over the top this year, but who is also under cost-effective control for an additional year. A quality SP who isn't just a rental has the chance to bring back a LOT at the trading deadline. But we have no other reason that we HAVE TO "give him away" NOW, that is unless someone is inclined to believe that tired chestnut of "must move salary."

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 22, 2011 -> 06:33 AM) I don't get why everyone thinks this extension is probably the result of KW not liking the offers he was getting for Danks. Why is it so hard to believe that KW wanted to extend Danks this whole time but Danks had simply expresses no interest until now? If I had to guess, the trade talks got to Danks and he decided he was happy here. Either his agent went to KW or KW came to him and told he was close to dealing him if he wouldn't agree to extension. Extending Danks has always made the most sense for this club regardless of the direction we are heading. He's a young, quality left-hander who can be the anchor of a young rotation. He's definitely no ace but he still has the potential to be a damn good #2 starter. We now have one of our top of the rotation spots filled for the next five years, with a lefty no less. That makes the rebuilding effort that much easier. If you believe in Sale, then we only have three spots to fill long-term. Between Humber, our existing minor league talent, and any prospects we bring in by trading Floyd, Quentin, and Thornton, I think that's very doable. However, in two years if we're still struggling to fill those spots, we now have a 29 left-handed starter with three years left on his deal that we can use to get a ton of young talent, much more than than we would have gotten now. Either way, this deal seems like a win-win for the Sox. Great post. I agree entirely. It always made sense to lock Danks up. The drama escalated because for whatever reason Danks got to within one year of complete freedom without being locked-in. At that point, KW had no alternative to explore the trade market (woeful, I'm sure because of the combo of one year of control and, in my opinion, an over-valuation of prospects industry wide in an industry where most prospects fail), but still wanted Danks back. On Danks's side, he clearly likes it here, clearly likes Coop (take that JCowardly), and was happy to sign an excellent yet market-fair contract giving him security for life for throwing a ball with a tool that could fall off the next time he throws said ball. Having him now helps a lot no matter whether the real internal mindset is "All In Part Deux," reloading, retooling, or modified/specialized reloading/retooling. I'm eager to see if we learn anything at all about the no-trade aspects of this contract. Given the recent Santos situation and Danks's relationship with this organization, the no-trade provisions had to be a focal point of the discussions. Unless this is a carefully orchestrated plan by the Sox and Danks camp to make Danks more tradeable by now having him locked in for five (and why would Danks do that NOW, other than security against getting hurt THIS YEAR), I'd have to imagine that Danks has very strong no-trade language protecting him for the first few years of the deal, but the Sox then have increasing ability to deal him away towards the end of the deal. No matter -- while not a true ace, John Danks is absolutely that valuable lefty starter who helps anchor an entire pitching staff. I'm very glad we have him back.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 09:15 PM) Yeah, I almost included Floyd in my original post, but my guess is that if the market for Danks isn't great, it's not going to be much better for Floyd. I don't know how badly we have to dump salary at this point, but Gavin at $7 million this year is one of our more valuable assets. I'd much rather deal Quentin since we have replacements in house than deal Floyd since we'll be trying to plug in Sale and Humber and one other guy (if we move Floyd) and crossing our fingers. Who knows though...this deal might have forced the sacrifice of Floyd...we'll just have to wait and see... Hey Shack, but for the same reason that Gavin is one of OUR most valuable assets, it's exactly why he'll fetch a better market return than Danks. In my opinion, Danks (relative to Floyd) is the better overall pitcher, the one more likely to have a quality plus 2012, and he's the "lefty" (always more valuable than the righty in the baseball marketplace). But what Kenny discovered (hopefully "rediscovered," because it's not exactly a brand new concept) I think, and certainly the Latos trade revealed, is that trade value is a matrix which includes ability, durability, economics, and control. There were not going to be many teams willing to pay anything close to Danks' value as a talent because of Danks' defects as an asset. The overall matrix score for Gavin is probably higher. Pre Danks' new contract, Gavin Floyd was likely the better asset. I don't see it as a sacrifice of Floyd, I see it as an internal commitment to flip certain assets for younger and cheaper talent. Today's marketplace has made it clear that we'd get nowhere near fair value for Danks, well, then segue to Plan B and see if better value is out there for Floyd.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 21, 2011 -> 08:28 PM) The next move would be to move Thornton and Quentin. I think the next move would be to move FLOYD and Quentin. With another quality starter now off the market, solid and durable Gavin, with his two years of affordable control, has real value to a pitching starved contender (or teams like the O's or Nats). Kenny just help make his own leverage -- now be patient dude, and ... use the leverage when you have it. Quentin has some value -- injury issues or not, his right-handed power numbers are not easy to find, he's not that expensive, and a team trading for him is only committing for one year. I like the idea of packaging him with Floyd for a decent package, but he can be traded in a reasonable trade. I'd actually keep Matt for the time being. Baseball is a funny game. Play the game and see what happens. While maybe not likely, it's certainly possible that turnaround years from some of the usual suspects combined with new on-field leadership can inject some sorely needed vitality into this group. It's happened other places. If we're contending, then we benefit from having Matt Thornton's stuff and experience; if we're not, then some contender will absolutely take Thornton for the stretch-run, even if it's purely a salary dump (and it will likely be just that). There are all sorts of things that led to Danks being signed, but kudos to Kenny for having the cajones to do the right thing and change up on his likely plan given our circumstances right this moment. I don't view it as waffling or being contradictory, I view it as having the guts to alter course as the target moves. And truck Keith Law anyway. What a joker. His anti-Sox bias has been obvious for years. I can't understand how anyone could care what he thinks about the Sox, a Sox prospect, or a Sox move. All things considered, I feel better about the Sox today than I did yesterday.

Given his style, his repertoire, his demonstrated durability, and his continuing ability to be left-handed, a young lefty like John Danks is exactly the kind of pitcher you "consider" inking to a (gasp) five year deal. 5 for anywhere from $55M to $70M would really be a sound deal for a solid number 2 or 3 style lefty who could flash ace potential for stretches or perhaps in a career year. Maybe they bonus him up next year thereby raising him into the new contract immediately. Maybe they've given him some comfort about their current plans for brother Jordan (by all accounts the Danks family is VERY close). And consider this, by inking their own (whose contract made him worth far less on the trade market than pitchers who he is arguably superior to), they take away another possible starting pitcher away from some of the pitching starved teams, thereby in effect fueling the market higher for the coming trade of Gavin Floyd. I'd much rather have Danks long-term than Floyd and Floyd is far more replaceable for us. Yet, two years of cost-controlled Gavin Floyd could be very attractive to the Beasts of the A.L. East (Yank-mes, Carmines, and the improving Jays), plus Gavin's hometown O's, and plus the Baltimore area Nats (HOWEVER, Rizzo will need to bend-over big-time before I do business with him). Inking Danks, trading Gavin, Thornton, and CQ (Gavin from a position of real strength, CQ getting something reasonable, and poor Mattie being essentially a salary dump), and then signing Cespedes could make 2012 interesting while breaking things up enough that we have player and financial room to maneuver a bit in the future.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 08:08 PM) Definitely agree about the lefty/right thing. Hector Santiago wouldn't even be mentioned in our plans for 2012 were he not a lefty. And it seems every team has those lefties like Wil Ohman who hang on into their late 30's/early 40's as loogy's...the Arthur Rhodes/Darren Olivers of the baseball world who will continue to sign decent-sized contracts as FA's. I can't remember the details of the particular network broadcast analyst or the barely adequate Methuselah LOOGY in question (it might have been Ray Searage), but when the LOOGY took the mound the analyst said: "This is LOOGY's 18th (or 20th or whatever) year in the Major Leagues and his longevity is a testament to his continuing ability to be left-handed." I couldn't stop laughing at that one. Yet, so much truth in that. If you can't raise your kid to be a left-handed hitting catcher (most certain route to the bigs), then at least make certain he/she is a left-handed pitcher!

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 05:23 PM) Cy, not sure how much to agree with you (especially recently) about the Twins having so much success with their pitching staff. That was one of the big factors in Bill Smith losing his job. . . . In the end, will remain cautiously optimistic. Like the Chad Bradfords, Mark Buehrle's and Josh Fogg's of past seasons, he'll have to prove himself every time out...that might be one of the biggest benefits of a "no pressure" year of out the gate, where younger players/pitchers can be given more time to find themselves at the major league level. Thanks for the well thought-out reply. I wasn't at all saying that the Twins have so much success with their pitching staff, but was merely using them (since we all know them so well) as the foil for the Sox sometimes over-emphasis on "stuff." It always fascinates me how lefty after lefty can be prospects throwing 88-92, but righties in that range are always HUGE suspects. To be drafted today, it seems right-handed pitchers need to be 6'5", 240lbs, with tree-trunk legs, throwing 93-96 mph. Like a few other posters have intimated, I also think that Axelrod actually has much better "stuff" than most people think he has -- velocity, movement, and bite. Plus, he's got some of that deception and short-arming that makes him difficult to "see." I don't think he's nearly the "pure guile" pitcher that some see him as; I think his minor and major league swing-and-miss numbers provide decent evidence of that. Yeah, his stature is going to make people doubt him -- kind of the white wide receiver syndrome that every NFL white wide receiver battles (no matter his published 40 time). But this guy has performed VERY well at the minor league level and in a limited sampling has shown the ability to get big league hitters out too. Sure he'll have to be on his game, but the same can be said for pretty much all the #4 and #5 style pitchers out there. Personally, I think those who instantly classify him as garbage aren't looking at the advanced numbers and using their eyes. We've seen awful #4's and #5's on the South Side and at least in my opinion Dylan Axelrod has a decent chance of being a LOT better pitcher than many of them.

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 04:30 PM) I think best case scenario for Axelrod is that he becomes this generation's Jon Snyder. Any reason for your thinking, other than evidently thinking Axelrod stinks and comparing to a pitcher from the past that also stunk? I remember late 90's John Snyder very well and I don't see any comparison at all. Snyder was a big, durable, pitch-to-contact sort who had just okay success in the minors and was brutal in the Bigs. Over 1100+ minor league innings, the guy had a cumulative 4.80 ERA, 10.3 (H/9) (in the MINORS!), almost a HR per 9 at 0.9, 6.3 K/9, and 3.0 BB/9. Once he made the Bigs he had a cumulative ERA over 6, hits, homers, and walks up, and strikeouts way down. By comparison, Dylan was Bob Feller in the minors -- swing and miss stuff, at just under 500 innings logging a 2.80 cumulative ERA, 8.2 (H/9), 0.3 HR/9, 8.0 K/9, and 2.0 BB/9. In an obviously very limited sampling, his big league ERA is 2.89, hits and HRs per/9 fairly similar to the minors, BB/9 way up at 4.3 (obviously a concern), but K/9 higher than the minors at 9.2. In no way am I suggesting that Dylan Axelrod is any sort of sure thing or is likely to be a stud, but the guy has consistently put up numbers and has absolutely nothing in common with John Snyder other than they are young right-handed pitchers who might be thrown into a big league rotation in an environment where many doubt their bona fides!

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 01:40 PM) I wouldn't talk about Carlos Torres like he had no stuff. When he pitched with the big league club, he showed that he had decent juice on his fastball and rather impressive movement. I remember a good, hard slider and an alright change, as well. He just couldn't throw strikes - I'd imagine he could have been a good middle-back starter himself had he not had jitters/bad luck/whatever it was that made him lose his normally impeccable control when he pitched for the Sox. Hey Jake, I didn't mean to imply that he had no stuff, rather that Dylan's stuff seems a tick better -- more oomph on the heater, some later movement, more bite on the breaking-stuff. Baseball is a crazy game because if Carlos Torres had been a left-hander, he would have been so much more of a prospect and would have been thought to have much better stuff. Lefties have such a great competitive advantage. Personally, I think what happened to Carlos is what happens to many righties with borderline stuff -- they don't have the confidence that their stuff will get big league hitters out, so they nibble. Not only does this mean that they're walking guys and always behind in counts (and big league hitters will then hammer them), it all snowballs because the command that allowed them to be successful at lower levels now eludes them and they're totally different pitchers than they were before. We saw this to a lesser extent with Axelrod too -- he walked 9 guys in 18 IP here in the Bigs while his minor league control had been incredible. It's something that he's going to have to be very careful about for him to have prolonged success.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 01:29 PM) I've been mentioning it as well, I personally think his stuff translates to the majors. His motion was alot like Daniel Hudson's I've made this same point to many Sox fan friends. Deception, motion, and just generally a hitter's inability to be comfortable and pick-up the ball doesn't always translate in scouting reports. You see it in the success a guy actually has while pitching. Dylan strikes out a whole lot more guys, and gives up a whole lot fewer homers, than you would think he would. Some of this is smarts and movement, but some of it must be deception/motion too. Given where we're at, I think there is no choice other than to trot the guy out there and see how he plays to major league sticks. We might be in for a surprise. (By the way, given your avatar, you are just the man who should be talking about "motion.")

QUOTE (JoeCoolMan24 @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 01:15 PM) I feel he could be a formidable #5 guy with #4 potential, which is a nice surprise when you figure he was pretty much a nobody in this system. Agreed. And I'm a bit more optimistic than that -- right now, given his intangibles, I'd feel pretty darned good about him as a #5, but I'd put his ceiling as a solid, inning-eating #3. Wouldn't it be something if he could turn out to be a find? If Dylan could give you quality innings as a starter, dollar cost averaging means I'm a whole lot less bothered by Jake's last giant contract year.

Does anyone else out there have any hope whatsoever that we might have a "hidden gem" in Dylan Axelrod? There is usually a bit more optimism when discussing a pitcher like Axelrod who throws with the south paw, but from time-to-time you can find a successful major league righty whose pitching-IQ, command, movement, and competitiveness combine to make him a heck of a lot better pitcher than his "pure stuff" would indicate. Obviously, the prototype of this style of righty is Greg Maddux (who actually did throw very hard when he first started and became THAT Greg Maddux only after he stopped trying or was unable to throw the ball past hitters). But Dylan doesn't have to be a once in a generation pitcher like Maddux, I'd gladly take Brad Radke, Rick Reuschel, or even Paul Byrd -- righties who put together some pretty darned good years without overwhelming stuff. I was more impressed than I expected with Dylan. His stuff (velocity, movement, breaking pitches) was much better than I expected it would be -- much better than someone like Carlos Torres (more like a John Danks than a Mark Buehrle). He's put up very good numbers with good peripherals in the minors and didn't look outclassed in the least in the Bigs. Obviously, the litmus test is whether barely adequate right handed stuff can consistently get big league hitters to make outs even with his other intangibles, but I don't totally discount the chance with this guy. One reason I ask is that my far-removed Sox source, a friend of one of the many inner circle owners (who is more interested in the baseball than the business) mentioned that there are those in Sox baseball circles who think Dylan might have a fighting chance of big league success. Apparently the kid attached himself to Buehrle's hip and this, plus his results, impressed a few. So, anyone with any hope or optimism about Dylan Axelrod? Of course, cutting the other way is the plight of Terry Doyle -- very much this same style of pitcher and yet even though we have a pitching starved system, we couldn't see fit to keep the dude after pretty darned good minor league success and a great deal of success in this year's AFL (a notorious HITTER'S LEAGUE), but the Twinkies liked him enough to snap him up as the 2nd selection in the Rule 5 draft. The Twins certainly have a history of valuing pitchability as much as stuff, while recent Sox history is certainly one of putting great emphasis on stuff and less on pitchers who somehow, some way, just get it done. So, it's a little hard for me to believe there is internal Sox optimism about Axelrod if we just let Doyle go like that (of course, maybe they think his "stuff" is just enough better than Doyle's to take the shot). If we trade Danks and Floyd for various electric young arms, after losing Buehrle as well, I would love to see if Dylan's whole package "plays" at the Big League level. Why the heck not?

Count me in with the camp who believe that we have sunk costs in Peavy, Rios, and Dunn -- we're talking really, really sunk (less with Jake, but man those other two) -- and to sell now would be selling at such a low that it would take even more years than we are currently facing to recover. We've got legit trading chips in Danks, Floyd, Quentin, and even Thornton (and in the right kind of deal, perhaps Alexei and even PK too). More than anything else, this organization needs to bring in value. Value! As in a valuable infusion of actual M.L. talent AND valuable depth. It's probably much more likely than not that we see moderate to significant improvement from each of the three. I'd trade each and every one of them in a salary dump the moment we did. Pure salary dump trades in the case of some known "dogs" are okay (sad, but what can you do sometimes), but this team does not have the resources to exacerbate an already sunk problem by digging that hole even deeper. Get max value for our trading chips and hope the Big Dogs get off those historic lows to help the team out a bit on the field, and then help the team out a lot more by making themselves "dumpable."

QUOTE (spiderman @ Dec 13, 2011 -> 11:14 AM) 2/3) I think the White Sox may have been caught off-guard on the Danks/Floyd market. For starters, I don't know that they will get back what they think they would have when the off-season began, and, if they can't get back what they were hoping, that could drastically change their plans, considering they still need to trim payroll and may have to decide between taking a lesser deal or finding another way to re-configure the roster, and add a few prospects. I can't say that the winter meetings were a success for the White Sox, but the meetings are also just a small portion of the off-season and there's plenty of time for the White Sox to execute their off-season plan, whatever that is. Of course, the opposite might also be the case -- despite all of the salivating GM's who did their best to CONVINCE Trader Kenny that he had overestimated the market for Danks/Floyd, THIS TIME Kenny remained patient, stuck to the plan, waited for the free agents to sign and some of the other attractive trade candidates to be moved, and will find himself with some truly valuable trading chips for pitching hungry teams in the weeks before pitchers and catchers are set to report! Any way you look at it, this was always the likeliest scenario to get max benefit for Danks/Floyd. Sure, they might still be with us because Kenny actually tried hard to move them already, but to no avail. I'm just hoping that this isn't the case and that we're holding firm and waiting for the seller's market to emerge. Hey, even a cynical Sox fan can hope now and then, right?

QUOTE (Stan Bahnsen @ Dec 11, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) Don't completely disagree, but "targeting" specific prospects has served Kenny well. Jon Garland, John Danks and Gavin Floyd come to mind. All well-undervalued by the teams who traded them. Of course, there are exceptions too. I understand what you're saying here, but I do think part of the disagreement that some of us are having with each other might have something to do with how we are using the term "targeting." If our management team is on top of their industry in the way most of us would like to think they are on top of their industry, we should have multiple "targeted" players on the major and minor league rosters of each and every team in baseball. Garland, Danks, Floyd, Quentin, DeAza, and many others must all have been targets to some extent, whether we approached their former teams for them specifically, or whether we asked for them when their former teams approached us for our players being almost immaterial. I think we can reasonably expect that we'd know the available talent throughout baseball -- wanting some players because they're undervalued, others because they're properly valued (in our opinion) but fill niches we want/need, and hopefully never want the overvalued ones. We should have scores and scores of possible targets throughout baseball. What I and some others seem to have some problem with is that it sure SEEMS that Kenny truly fixates on certain "targets" as must-haves and because the industry in general knows he does this, he routinely overpays relative to what others might have paid. Not to mention that finding out how much a target might cost -- Molina, Floyd, or whoever -- isn't mutually exclusive with finding out what many others might pay for your trading chips (Santos, Brandon McCarthy or whoever). Many people keep repeating -- "Oh, if you press too hard or shop too much you might lose out on the deal." Yeah, you might. And if you don't press or shop at all, you might make the kind of deals that we keep seeing Kenny making (WE trade multiple prospects for one major leaguer; WE get one prospect for our major leaguer). Sure, if your press or shop you might lose a deal. Too bad. That's the case in every industry. Baseball isn't any different. And if you're doing your homework and scouting diligently, there are many similar "prospects" (of a particular type or sort) scattered throughout baseball. It's rare when there is a one-of-a-kind prospect out there. And those aren't usually available to anyone. If you truly LOVE Molina (and I really hope they did love him a lot more than most of the scouting reports love him), then I have no problem "targeting" him. But in my mind this can and should be done concurrently with finding out what might be offered for Santos throughout baseball (or at least those teams that we are willing to deal with). You don't think the Red Sox, Orioles, or teams x, y, or z have Molina equivalents in their system? Perhaps one of these teams might have traded their Molina plus something else for Santos? You only know that if you tried (and, in fairness, perhaps Kenny did). I've personally discussed this issue to death. I'd trade a reliever like Santos over-and-over again for a fair return. I'd always be willing to take some risks trading a present quality reliever for the CHANCE of quality at the starter position. I simply think that it's possible we took on too much of a risk -- because perhaps we lost out on the opportunity cost of seeing what else might be out there, and perhaps because getting back just ONE potential M.L. starter, who has pitched less than 30 innings at AA or higher, is incredibly risky for a team with very little margin for error.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 10, 2011 -> 08:21 PM) But there's still that one thing out there. With Santos...we did not have to move him. We have to move Danks, we have to move Quentin, we didn't have to move Santos if we didn't get a return big enough to say "that was a good deal". Yes. This. Bingo. Maybe "the market" dictates the return when you have no other realistic choice other than selling on the market. But when you have the choice, when simply keeping a quality, low-mileage, and affordable arm IS a realistic alternative to selling on the market, then YOU have the leverage, YOU hold the cards, and YOU make the market. As you suggest, Santos should have been moved only if we felt we got a good deal (and some might argue only if we got a really good deal). Theory aside, perhaps this is exactly what the Sox, umm, brain trust think they got -- a really good deal. It's certainly possible that Molina could be a far greater prospect with much better big league potential than what most of the scouting gurus think (lord knows they are often very, very wrong about prospects). And it's certainly possible too that the Sox have legitimate reason to believe that Sergio isn't as high quality (going forward) as many of us think he is. Beyond all of that, I continue to think that most of the uproar is far from trading Sergio (I love the idea of trading Sergio under the Sox present circumstances, just not the implementation/return), and it isn't even about what we think about the return (because not a single one of us really has a great idea about Molina's potential in the Bigs, other than what "experts" with varying credentials tell us). The real issue is that by NOT contacting the Red Sox, NOT contacting the Orioles, and likely NOT contacting many other teams as well, it appears that Kenny didn't exhaustively maximize value for his trading chip. A team with deep resources and a well-stocked farm can get away with that; we can't. Some will say -- "well, that's not how Kenny does his business ... he finds a target and does what it takes to get him." Maybe that's true. And maybe the old dog must learn that the old tricks haven't been working all that well and it's time to learn a new trick or two (not that due diligence and establishing a market is a "new" trick to most, but it certainly might be a new way of operating for our GM).

"The Chairman" was talking about why it was acceptable for KW to decide it was time to let Buehrle move on. Accountability, huh? Well, there is also a time when you have to move on with your GM. I can't understand what would make ownership trust reloading, rebuilding, rewhatevering to the architect of today's, umm, unstable structure (particularly, if as reported, KW himself offered to step-down). Loyalty is a good thing, but like most good things, too much of it can stop being a good thing. Fresh blood and fresh vision are also good things.

QUOTE (hi8is @ Dec 8, 2011 -> 08:33 PM) I think that last season was not upper management masquerading any product - but rather, just ending up on the short side of the stick. It didn't end up being a true quality professional baseball team in reality but on paper it sure looked nice. Who would have predicted that ALL of the following would have taken place: . . . The management put a good team together - on paper. Many of these things couldn't have been foreseen... two important things thou: a.) fans have every right to be upset that the players didn't preform and SHOULD show up to support a quality product - when it's on the field next, proving itself. b.) milkman is right - post more often. Thanks to you and many for the kind words. I've had flurries of posting on the various Sox boards for many, many years. Just not sustainable for me. I know myself and I've learned to use these sources primarily for the info/rumor fix. I've long enjoyed THIS board most of all because of the quality of the baseball thought AND the writing/humor. As to your points Hi, I agree somewhat that 2011 became almost the perfect storm of individually and even epically poor performances by historically predictable players which dashed some high hopes virtually from the season's outset. You'll never hear me bashing KW or any GM for a well-considered trade or move which turns out to be horrendous (in hindsight) because of later factors that few if any could have reasonably predicted. Adam Dunn's 2011 was pathetic beyond belief, especially coming from a seemingly healthy ballplayer whose back of the baseball card showed almost eerie year-to-year consistency. Many saw SOME warning signs that he might decline a bit (the whole "never DH'd before thing was a personal concern"), and I personally HATE that style of all-or-nothing slugger, but if you opted to have that style of player in your lineup, then Dunn SEEMED as safe and predictable a bet as any signing in the history of free agents. Turned out a bit differently, but you can't convince me that ANY GM in baseball could have guessed THAT. But here's the thing, yeah, everything that could go wrong did go wrong, horribly wrong, but I NEVER saw that team as constructed as some juggernaut big-payroll team. Rather, I saw it as a flawed team that COULD do some real damage if everything went right, but it was a big payroll team because of many poor past decisions and the need to spend money to band-aid the product. Don't want to write a novel here (although sure I will), but I definitely saw it as a masquerade -- "look what we're giving you -- a high payroll," when in fact any analysis at all saw a lot of overpaid players whose declining (or overrated) skillsets made for a poorly constructed TEAM. Some examples: *Juan Pierre -- Don't get me started. He CAN do some things, but the guy hasn't been a high quality and EVERYDAY leadoff hitter for years. Yet, infuriatingly, stubborn Ozzie trotted the guy out there every damned day, resting the other starters (but you'd always see Pierre), so like Jaime Navarro years ago as a starter, he wasn't only (relatively) awful, he was durable in being awful. Yuck to the max. An A.L. leadoff guy with no power, tremendously overrated stolen base ability (at this point in his career), and horrendous outfield tools (other than pure ability to get to a ball) was simply a big, big problem (exacerbated by a manager who saw things in him that virtually no one else did). *Dunn -- talked about him above, but not only don't I like his style for this team (all of our former sluggers had been hitters with power, rather than sluggers -- e.g., Dick Allen, the Big Skirt, Maggs, modern-day Konerko, and even TCQ), Dunn and his $$$ should never have been necessary had KW not botched the whole Gentleman Jim Thome thing (who on his worst day is twice the hitter that Dunn is). So the team has to then band-aid to get Dunn, we unexpectedly get epic fail out of a former slugging robot, but Ozzie again exacerbates things by not only batting Dunn third (even against lefties ... who in their right mind would EVER bat Adam Dunn third against anybody?), but doing it over and over again. I won't go so far as to say Ozzie threw games to make a point about Kenny's acquisitions, but stubborn Ozzie continually hurt the team the last few years by trying to prove that HE is the smartest guy in the room and going against basic statistics and other prevailing baseball opinion. *Rios -- All I can say about Rios is that the way he underperforms his tools is infuriating, embarrassing, and upsetting. So sure, we have a big payroll, but I could never think we had any sort of juggernaut when we have to rely on a guy like that as a major cog. In my opinion, Rios above all others is the one that KW should take the heat for. Again, we weren't ever a top team, we were just being told we had a top team. *Peavy -- Loved the aggressiveness of going out and getting an ace, but for an organization historically reluctant to take big chances on pitching, this was a head-scratcher to me (and yes, even at the time). Petco splits, already existing concerns about how his max-effort and somewhat unsound delivery would age, and how his style would generally translate to the stronger A.L. lineups made many people wonder whether THIS was the ace you really wanted to pay the long-term big-bucks for. Hey, allegedly part of the thinking for letting Hudson go for Jackson was scouting info that suggested Hudson and his style would never amount to "all that much" in the A.L. Debatable, but fine, that's a position. But you can't have it both ways. Because many said the exact same thing in the opposite direction about Peavy. N.L. Petco Peavy might have been worth X, but not the Peavy that we'd be getting (and his later injuries have absolutely nothing to do with my analysis). But all the player overrating aside, my real problem with EVER having any confidence in last year's product was the continuing dysfunction between our goofball manager and our swell-headed GM (and more broadly, our ownership that allowed all of this dysfunction to persist). Lots of examples out there about creative tensions between teammates that make the whole more than the sum of the parts, but 3-4 years of this nonsense already made it clear that THIS wasn't THAT. We had leadership at every level that was actually HURTING the overall team. That sabotaged the team from the start and made it as unlikeable a team, and product, as any Sox team I can remember (and 10-12 of my Sox fanatic friends felt exactly the same way). All that said, Ozzie leaving was necessary. And I can't imagine how ownership would possibly want the architect to supervise the fix. My hope is that some soul-searching may result in a changed approach (loved Kenny in his early years; very skeptical about change given the Santos deal, but maintaining some hope by seemingly being very patient about Danks, Floyd, Thornton, and Quentin). Hey, no team is perfect -- even the true juggernauts. I simply saw so many problems with this team from the get-go that I wasn't excited from 2011 Day 1 (hopeful, yes; but not excited) and the inability of management to stop the free-fall made it a simply gut-wrenching baseball year.

You sound like one of the sensationalizing sports columnists in this town. You truly think the Sox FANS have any amount of blame in this mess? Please. Sox fans have shown over and over again that they will support a quality product. Not a big payroll team masquerading as a quality product ... not clever advertisements trying to dupe us into thinking that we're seeing a quality product ... but a true quality professional baseball team (and organization). When THAT is on the field, Sox fans come out and pay to support the team. This shouldn't surprise ownership. They're well aware that Sox fans support quality and vote with their wallets against mediocrity and worse. It's been this way in this town forever. Hearing KW whine about having no money (in those years when his allowance is cut) is so tiresome. You have no money Kenny because your performance hasn't brought in the revenue, which increases your allowance. Instead of whining about it, do something about the product on the field. And if THAT is beyond you, then ownership needs to bring someone else in who can do that job. Sox fans are to BLAME? Wow, you've really bought yourself a bill of goods, dude.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 07:58 PM) Which is what he should be doing on December 7th. I'm not sure what the f*** you want, Dick...do you want him to get good prospects for these pieces or do you want him to just give them away? For everyone crying about Santos not being shopped more, why the hell are you also crying that there has not been more trades made? Make up your damned minds. As one who considers it basically General Manager negligence to (apparently) not have shopped Santos to any and all interested parties, I'm perfectly glad Kenny's itchy trigger finger hasn't caused him to take the first borderline offer on Danks, Floyd, Thornton, or Quentin. The "losers" in the Buehrle, Wilson, and Gio derbies will have a far greater incentive to do what it takes to go for either Danks or Floyd. Quentin best goes to somebody (anybody) who fears going into Spring Training without the thumper they think they need. It's called finding and making a market -- something that some of us believe (apparently) was NOT done with Santos. Thornton is a toughie. His contract makes him a real luxury. Best guess is that he's either traded as an add-on to a deal involving one of the above, or, failing that, he's essentially given away for a PTBNL and salary relief.

Been aware of being a Sox fan since 1964 and Mark Buehrle had the best 10+ year run of any Sox pitcher during my fandom. Great talent (fastball velocity is just one tool); great command of all of the little things a pitcher can do to control a game; great competitor; great durability and dependability; great public ambassador for his team; and, by all accounts, great teammate. And what a great body of work: year after year of 30 starts and 200 IP; two no hitters (one a perfect game); feared pick-off artist who shut-down running games; 3X Gold Glover with some incredible highlight reel plays to his credit; 4X All Star; and, of course, World Series Champion, with a win AND a save. It's unfortunate that some very poor management choices made it impossible for the Sox to pay good old #56 anywhere close to market value on what's likely to be his last big contract. Pity. Like many, knowing that these poor management choices (and poorly performing players) led to an impossibility of keeping our own as one of those rare one-team players, can't help but stick in our proverbial craw in the coming years. If you ever happen to read this thread Mark -- thanks for playing the game we all love in the way most of us imagine that we would play it, but probably less than one in a hundred pros ever really pull-off. It's been a privilege having you as my favorite pitcher on my favorite team. I can't say that I'll root for the Marlins because I've grown to detest Ozzie as a manager, but I'll definitely root for you to take no prisoners in the N.L. -- perhaps an ERA title, another GG or two, how about another no hitter, and, while we're at it, maybe HR #2. Good luck #56! And thank you!!!

QUOTE (kwolf68 @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 03:21 PM) I am personally critiquing the trade and not the talent level of the player. To that end, I believe value was left on the vine. This said, I have reservations about Kenny's staff to properly evaluate/scout talent. We have one of the worst minor league systems in the majors and Kenny has recently traded off middle to top of the rotation talent (Hudson and Gio) for which we now have nothing to show. The Edwin Jackson trade was utterly mind boggling, because of who the agent was. Kenny knew Jackson was a short term solution and he really wasn't that much of an upgrade (if any) over Hudson. And OH BY THE WAY, take a prospect WITH HUDSON as well. What kind of sense was that trade? none!!! The Gio trade, which included another elite prospect + going for a mediocre outfielder is also something a 'good front office' does not do. The people responsible for the current sorry state of the White Sox are the ones we are asking to rebuild this thing!!!! I just have my doubts. I really am very cynical right now, as much as I've been in a long time about this franchise, but as White Sox fans I guess we're used to that on some level. What he said. Bravo. I'm just amazed that an ownership group that includes very accomplished businessmen would ask someone with direct culpability for a weakened product to "fix it." Usually the fix-it guy needs to show a superior resume. Is 2005 the lifetime pass? Like a couple of years in a Sox uni is seemingly a lifetime pass to coach? I defended KW a lot in his early years to my Sox fan friends -- even when he swung and missed on a deal (the Wells deal is one example) -- because I could see that he was passionate, determined, and truly wanted to win. How often did longtime Sox fans wish for THAT kind of GM??? But, all of that presupposes some confidence in at least threshold or bell-curve abilities to actually do the work that a GM does. Over time, the entire body of work just starts to tell a tale. I know many very cynical Sox fans right now. Can an old dog learn new tricks? I suppose, but this first trade -- the old Krauss-ian I'm smarter than anyone and I'll do what it takes to get my guy ... even if it's risky ... even if I'm possibly leaving unexplored riches on the table -- certainly seems like an old trick. I think trading Santos was a great and inspired idea. Non-Mo closers are substantially overvalued. I loved Sergio and personally do NOT think his best days are behind him (although he may get rocked in the AL East), but a team with finite resources in a currently precarious situation cannot afford to leave ANYTHING in the table. I so hope that Molina turns out to be the real deal, but the trade still bothers me if only because it demonstrates that the controversies and lack of success in the past few years has not led to a new and improved way of running the team. Haven't posted much in the past few years and in the previous five years under a different name only because I have a tendency to say the same things over and over. I greatly prefer being a Sox fan than finding fault with my players or organization leadership. Love your passion Kenny, but you gotta learn some new tricks, man. We're getting beat-up over and over again. Your style ain't working. What's that they say about the definition of insanity? Doing the same problematic things over and over again, but this time hoping against hope for a different result? Go Sox!!!

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 03:13 PM) I liked this post of yours better than that last one. Makes sense. I just wish someday I'd love a Sox trade or free agent signing and someday not have utter confidence we're looking at a rebuild with the wrong guy runnng it. Thanks for your reply. Hey, trust me, I'm far from a KW backer. I think he telegraphs virtually all of his moves, stares down his intended target, and has neither the disposition nor inclination to patiently work a deal to maximize value. Unless you're the smartest guy in the room and rarely swing-and-miss (and he's not and he does), this is a recipe for disaster (witness the current precarious state of our big league team and the rather pitiful state of our minor league system). Basically, I think he gets taken advantage of over and over again by GMs with greater expertise. I do think we have the wrong guy running our so-called "rebuild" (although we'll never have an actual rebuild based on the positioning of the Sox in this market and because we're saddled with multiple bad deals). I desperately wanted Williams out as much as Guillen. He's done some good things over his tenure, but not many since 2006 (and made some incredibly poor decisions during that time too), and sometimes an organ-I-zation simply needs new blood and fresh ideas. All that said, Rogers is a hack and this particular column was one of his worst. Kenny has plenty of real deficiencies -- don't need a columnist with an agenda adding BS fuel to the fire (and actually deflecting attention from the real problems). Lost in all of the posturing on message boards is that absent the trolls, pretty much all posters are zealous fans. I know I am. Certainly in my circles, I'm considered the biggest Sox fan around. I wear that proudly. But that doesn't mean I have to like having KW as our GM (even though he's been much better than many of our truly horrible former GMs) any more than I had to like latter-year Ozzie as our field manager, or Darin Erstad roaming in CF, or Jaime Navarro throwing out a plus 6.00 ERA over 85+ starts during his Sox career. I'm not working with secretive Kenny in the trenches so I acknowledge that he might actually be doing many of the things that I wish he were doing. But, there is little in his track record to suggest that and it sure seems his GM batting average isn't altogether different than his batting average during his playing career.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 02:43 PM) He pointed out that Kenny thought this guy was dominating winter league ball when Molina wasn't even pitching. And u are not alarmed at that? Santos was nasty at times last year. Weird to dump him in a 1-1 deal like many have said. I've been one who has said over and over again that it's incredibly risky to move any successful, cost-effective, current big-leaguer for any single prospect other than a perceived "can't miss" or max-tools guy (Molina apparently being neither). I hope they're right on Molina, but still don't like the unnecessary risk of trading a valuable trading chip for the annointed "the one," when the target hasn't pitched above AA ball. That is my problem with the deal, but I still have a problem with Rogers whose knowledge often appears very limited and superficial and who clearly bleeds Cubbie blue. Great Phil. Kenny made a goof. Call him on that. But turning an entire column into that with the very clear implication that the winter league this year versus last year goof means that Kenny doesn't know the first thing about Molina is B.S. and reveals much more about Rogers than it does about Kenny. Fact: Marco Paddy signed Molina and knew him well during his stint in the Jays system. Fact: Paddy is one of KW's new advisors. To suggest that Kenny doesn't know about Molina is laughable and deliberately inflammatory (in my opinion) since as the Jay's GM AA has revealed they'd been talking about Molina for at least a month already. Molina dominated in winter ball LAST YEAR and at A and AA stops THIS YEAR. That our GM goofed and mentioned winter ball THIS YEAR ... for a prospect they know about very well ... in an industry where many players dominate in winter ball (I have friends who were total non-prospects who "dominated" in winter ball) ... is a total yawner that Phil grabbed on to in order to jab a GM/team that he clearly doesn't like or respect. As I said, that tells me much more about a supposed professional journalist than it tells me about a baseball GM. Have some perspective, dude.

QUOTE (kwolf68 @ Dec 7, 2011 -> 12:08 AM) But as soon as you're willing to move a player, then you exhaust all opportunities, including calling the Orioles. Brutal trade. Bingo. Williams preferred methodology of "targeting" a player and failing (it seems) to ascertain the market are NOT mutually exclusive. But, it's not necessarily a "brutal trade," time will tell on that. Instead, it's a brutal and rather amateurish PROCESS.