Guest JimH Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 well , if thats true, explain why williams had a 2 year 7 million dollar deal on the table for JB all season up til the trade?? Says who? What's with all this Baldwin love? Do you REALLY think keeping James Baldwin would've meant a division title in 2001? You like to look at things in retrospect, so in retrospect, it was good they didn't have to pay Baldwin any more money, because he was breaking down. And now he's totally broken down. Did you read the other thread, where I asked for examples of "two bad trades for every good one"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 well , if thats true, explain why williams had a 2 year 7 million dollar deal on the table for JB all season up til the trade?? I have never heard of this before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 well , if thats true, explain why williams had a 2 year 7 million dollar deal on the table for JB all season up til the trade?? Baggs... are you sure about this..? IIFC, JB has just gotten married and didn't want to stay in Chicago so it was kind of a mutual trade..? ( ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 And before anyone points to the Great Unpredictablity of Baseball and Life when talking about Kenny's season killing trades, aquisitions and signings (Ritchie, Koch, White, Konerko, Klayton, Baines, Durham for Adkins, Ramirez, Pantygua, Show, Rios, Daubach, Jimenez waiver fiasco, etc).....Hey, guess what fellas, that's why HE is up there earning the chex and getting the chix and NOT us blue-collar grunts-- to make TOUGH close-call decisions and be RIGHT. Most of these things you are talking about mean basically nothing. Durham sucked so who cares. The San Fran fans were sarcastically thanking us for him last year. I know he was traded to the A's so do go into that. Jimenez was causing the clubhouse to divide, he had to go fast. Maybe no one would give us a damn thing for him. Koch may not end up to be all that bad. Didn't we also get Cotts in that deal? May turn out to be really good for us. Baines was returning as a fan favorite. Konerko was not a bad trade. Lets see what he does this year. I will give you Ritchie, that deal was awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 Durham sucked so who cares. i cant believe you said that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 i cant believe you said that Where you been baggs...? Of course the best 2B the Sox have had in how many years.... sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 Says who? What's with all this Baldwin love? Do you REALLY think keeping James Baldwin would've meant a division title in 2001? You like to look at things in retrospect, so in retrospect, it was good they didn't have to pay Baldwin any more money, because he was breaking down. And now he's totally broken down. Did you read the other thread, where I asked for examples of "two bad trades for every good one"? says who??...says KW back then...when he made his famous "just a bridge" speech about baldwin he said we tried to negoiate a deal with baldwin but the two sides couldnt meet...reports were KW offered 2years at 7 million..baldwin wanted something like 5 million a year..in retrospect baldwin was a dumbass for not taking KW's deal....my point is the guy i wrote that to said that baldwin was broken down and everyone knew but the dodgers( how could everyone know it but the dodgers??..that doesnt even make sense - all scouts sit together at games and most share info - if baldwin really was done - everyone would have known it - just like everyone now knows orlando hernandez is done)... if thats the case the kenny is dumber than i thought because he was gonna give 7 million to a broken down pitcher...so obviously he was mistaken... since you asked...yes...i would have given JB 7 mil for 2 years and yes it would have ben a mistake....but one thing..JB's era was lower in LA than any other time in his career and a little over his career average in seattle..for some reason this guy could carry an ERA of 5 for the white sox over a 6 year career and leave here with the 10th highest winning pct (69 -53 = 56%) of any sox pitcher in history logging 1000 plus innings with the team...why is that??..i dont know but when JB took the mound the sox always played thier best baseball...and 6 years is too long to be a fluke..maybe if he was still here his career would have turned out different..it couldnt have turned out any worse than what ritchie did...and in retrospect the choice really was sign baldwin or trade for ritchie... plus we would still have kip wells do you really need examples of 2 bad trades for every good one???...you really cant see that?? bad trades '01 wells trade , clayton trade..baldwin trade..any good trades that year?? 02 .ritchie trade - durham bad . marte good (actually great) 03 koch bad - jimenez bad - if we could ahve signed colon long term that would have ben a great trade for KW...as it stands biddle is a better closer then koch and for crying poor as a defense for williams....thats a bunch of crap payroll went from 31 million to 64 million in kw's first year (per USA today)..he had an extra 33 million to deal with things like increases in players salary , replacing injured players and bring ing in new players to make the team better...and he screwed it up..how many GM's get that much free reign??..compare that to danny evans who took over the dodgers and his first order from the owners was to cut payroll 20%... why cant people see this guy is a bad, VERY BAD gm??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Didn't Schueler trade three young pitchers, one still playing, for Steve Sax? This goes back in this post that I didn't wnat to quote due to the length. I beleive the Ritchie deal was more Schueler than Williams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Critic Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 David Wells for Sirotka should have worked out. Too bad Wells is such a fat ass that his back blew out on him that year. I don't remember one fan saying that was a bad trade when it happened. If I had been posting here then, I would have been the One Fan who said that was a bad deal the second it happened. I liked Sirotka A LOT, and I have always HATED David Wells. A fat, bloated, selfish, slovenly, loudmouth "me-boy". Awful awful awful. I was actually happy that trade blew up just to show them that you don't tradeaway a good guy who pitched well for the Sox and get a fat self-promoting asshole in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Didn't Schueler trade three young pitchers, one still playing, for Steve Sax? This goes back in this post that I didn't wnat to quote due to the length. I beleive the Ritchie deal was more Schueler than Williams. Schu set the table and then KW made Todd out to be the next Roger Clemens, IIRC. I do believe it was KW that pulled the trigger though.. So long ago though.. and I've tried very hard to block all things Todd out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 says who??...says KW back then...when he made his famous "just a bridge" speech about baldwin he said we tried to negoiate a deal with baldwin but the two sides couldnt meet...reports were KW offered 2years at 7 million..baldwin wanted something like 5 million a year..in retrospect baldwin was a dumbass for not taking KW's deal....my point is the guy i wrote that to said that baldwin was broken down and everyone knew but the dodgers( how could everyone know it but the dodgers??..that doesnt even make sense - all scouts sit together at games and most share info - if baldwin really was done - everyone would have known it - just like everyone now knows orlando hernandez is done)... if thats the case the kenny is dumber than i thought because he was gonna give 7 million to a broken down pitcher...so obviously he was mistaken... since you asked...yes...i would have given JB 7 mil for 2 years and yes it would have ben a mistake....but one thing..JB's era was lower in LA than any other time in his career and a little over his career average in seattle..for some reason this guy could carry an ERA of 5 for the white sox over a 6 year career and leave here with the 10th highest winning pct (69 -53 = 56%) of any sox pitcher in history logging 1000 plus innings with the team...why is that??..i dont know but when JB took the mound the sox always played thier best baseball...and 6 years is too long to be a fluke..maybe if he was still here his career would have turned out different..it couldnt have turned out any worse than what ritchie did...and in retrospect the choice really was sign baldwin or trade for ritchie... plus we would still have kip wells do you really need examples of 2 bad trades for every good one???...you really cant see that?? bad trades '01 wells trade , clayton trade..baldwin trade..any good trades that year?? 02 .ritchie trade - durham bad . marte good (actually great) 03 koch bad - jimenez bad - if we could ahve signed colon long term that would have ben a great trade for KW...as it stands biddle is a better closer then koch and for crying poor as a defense for williams....thats a bunch of crap payroll went from 31 million to 64 million in kw's first year (per USA today)..he had an extra 33 million to deal with things like increases in players salary , replacing injured players and bring ing in new players to make the team better...and he screwed it up..how many GM's get that much free reign??..compare that to danny evans who took over the dodgers and his first order from the owners was to cut payroll 20%... why cant people see this guy is a bad, VERY BAD gm??? I give KW credit for this. He tries to make his team better. Last year was the best team we have had in a long time. Taking payroll from 30-60M is great but where did it go - - Ordonez, Valentin, Wells, Foulke, konerko. Take it from 60-90 and now there are things that can be done. That $30M lies solely on retention of players that are production. See the Brewers and why they suck every year but would be competive if they spent to keep players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 says who??...says KW back then...when he made his famous "just a bridge" speech about baldwin he said we tried to negoiate a deal with baldwin but the two sides couldnt meet...reports were KW offered 2years at 7 million..baldwin wanted something like 5 million a year..in retrospect baldwin was a dumbass for not taking KW's deal....my point is the guy i wrote that to said that baldwin was broken down and everyone knew but the dodgers( how could everyone know it but the dodgers??..that doesnt even make sense - all scouts sit together at games and most share info - if baldwin really was done - everyone would have known it - just like everyone now knows orlando hernandez is done)... if thats the case the kenny is dumber than i thought because he was gonna give 7 million to a broken down pitcher...so obviously he was mistaken... since you asked...yes...i would have given JB 7 mil for 2 years and yes it would have ben a mistake....but one thing..JB's era was lower in LA than any other time in his career and a little over his career average in seattle..for some reason this guy could carry an ERA of 5 for the white sox over a 6 year career and leave here with the 10th highest winning pct (69 -53 = 56%) of any sox pitcher in history logging 1000 plus innings with the team...why is that??..i dont know but when JB took the mound the sox always played thier best baseball...and 6 years is too long to be a fluke..maybe if he was still here his career would have turned out different..it couldnt have turned out any worse than what ritchie did...and in retrospect the choice really was sign baldwin or trade for ritchie... plus we would still have kip wells do you really need examples of 2 bad trades for every good one???...you really cant see that?? bad trades '01 wells trade , clayton trade..baldwin trade..any good trades that year?? 02 .ritchie trade - durham bad . marte good (actually great) 03 koch bad - jimenez bad - if we could ahve signed colon long term that would have ben a great trade for KW...as it stands biddle is a better closer then koch and for crying poor as a defense for williams....thats a bunch of crap payroll went from 31 million to 64 million in kw's first year (per USA today)..he had an extra 33 million to deal with things like increases in players salary , replacing injured players and bring ing in new players to make the team better...and he screwed it up..how many GM's get that much free reign??..compare that to danny evans who took over the dodgers and his first order from the owners was to cut payroll 20%... why cant people see this guy is a bad, VERY BAD gm??? "Reports were KW offered 7 milion over two years". So that makes it fact? Seems to me you like to believe certain things the media says when they suit your argument, but not others. Yeah, in fact, I would like to see a list of "two bad trades for every one good", because I have the list of all the trades he's made. And you're way off. The Wells trade was bad? How so? Toronto got NOTHING that contributed to them. You were shocked that Baldwin's ERA was lower in L.A.? It does happen when players change leagues. Hitters aren't used to seeing the guy. Bottom line is, he's broken down. And to say if the Sox would've kept Baldwin the Ritchie trade wouldn't have been made ... wrong. Baldwin was breaking down. They traded for the wrong guy in Ritchie, but they wanted a horse. A breaking down Baldwin was not a horse. Biddle is a better closer than Koch, based on what? One season? I couldn't disagree more, and further, I think you're skewing things again to fit your argument. Check out Biddle's stats the 2nd half of last year. I liked Rocky, thought he was a gamer, but he's another guy who's had trouble staying healthy. Koch has a lot more history as an effective closer. I am not a Koch fan, he drives me nuts with his control, but Biddle is a better closer than Koch? C'mon. You must be reading your Mark Johnson scouting reports. My sense is you've got strong feelings for certain players, especially those on the 2000 team, which you seem to portray as some kind of budding dynasty. They weren't. On the 2001 payroll issue, lots of guys were in line for raises, that was well known before Williams got the job. Bringing in David Wells took a lot of that money. Again, I do not think KW is a great GM. He fails in particular with the chemistry aspect of his job. But you look at everything from the perspective of "how did KW screw this up", and that's overdramatization at the very least. I agree with you on disputing the Dodgers were the only one who wouldn't have known about Baldwin though. That is implausible. I think the Dodgers were trying to catch lightning in a bottle, hoping he could win a few games and get them into the playoffs. They gave up nothing to get him, that is for sure. I doubt any other team would've either. The main guy the Sox wanted back was Majewski. They got him back, and after almost losing him last year, he's on the 40 man with a chance to contribute. Everyone else in that trade is long gone. How bad was it again? I also agree with you on Durham, but I don't value him as highly as you seem to. I think he's light years better than what we have now though. Fact is, the Sox were not gonna sign him at the price he got from SF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Schu set the table and then KW made Todd out to be the next Roger Clemens, IIRC. I do believe it was KW that pulled the trigger though.. So long ago though.. and I've tried very hard to block all things Todd out. That is exactly how I remember it too Steff. KW pulled the trigger, based (partly) on Schueler's recommendation and all their scouting reports. Which leads back to why I think pro scouting has been, and is, a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 That is exactly how I remember it too Steff. KW pulled the trigger, based (partly) on Schueler's recommendation and all their scouting reports. Which leads back to why I think pro scouting has been, and is, a problem. Was Kenny not the scout before GM...?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Was Kenny not the scout before GM...?? No, he was director of the minor leagues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 No, he was director of the minor leagues. Darn... I really wanted to blame him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Darn... I really wanted to blame him. That's ok ... there will be plenty of people who will!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 i cant believe you said that really why not? I am not talking about his whole career with the sox. I am talking about his career after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 "Reports were KW offered 7 milion over two years". So that makes it fact? Seems to me you like to believe certain things the media says when they suit your argument, but not others. Yeah, in fact, I would like to see a list of "two bad trades for every one good", because I have the list of all the trades he's made. And you're way off. The Wells trade was bad? How so? Toronto got NOTHING that contributed to them. You were shocked that Baldwin's ERA was lower in L.A.? It does happen when players change leagues. Hitters aren't used to seeing the guy. Bottom line is, he's broken down. And to say if the Sox would've kept Baldwin the Ritchie trade wouldn't have been made ... wrong. Baldwin was breaking down. They traded for the wrong guy in Ritchie, but they wanted a horse. A breaking down Baldwin was not a horse. Biddle is a better closer than Koch, based on what? One season? I couldn't disagree more, and further, I think you're skewing things again to fit your argument. Check out Biddle's stats the 2nd half of last year. I liked Rocky, thought he was a gamer, but he's another guy who's had trouble staying healthy. Koch has a lot more history as an effective closer. I am not a Koch fan, he drives me nuts with his control, but Biddle is a better closer than Koch? C'mon. You must be reading your Mark Johnson scouting reports. My sense is you've got strong feelings for certain players, especially those on the 2000 team, which you seem to portray as some kind of budding dynasty. They weren't. On the 2001 payroll issue, lots of guys were in line for raises, that was well known before Williams got the job. Bringing in David Wells took a lot of that money. Again, I do not think KW is a great GM. He fails in particular with the chemistry aspect of his job. But you look at everything from the perspective of "how did KW screw this up", and that's overdramatization at the very least. I agree with you on disputing the Dodgers were the only one who wouldn't have known about Baldwin though. That is implausible. I think the Dodgers were trying to catch lightning in a bottle, hoping he could win a few games and get them into the playoffs. They gave up nothing to get him, that is for sure. I doubt any other team would've either. The main guy the Sox wanted back was Majewski. They got him back, and after almost losing him last year, he's on the 40 man with a chance to contribute. Everyone else in that trade is long gone. How bad was it again? I also agree with you on Durham, but I don't value him as highly as you seem to. I think he's light years better than what we have now though. Fact is, the Sox were not gonna sign him at the price he got from SF. i said JB's era was the lowest of his career when he got traded to the dodgers...you come back with this... "You were shocked that Baldwin's ERA was lower in L.A.? "....how do you jump to that conclusion???..where do i say i was shocked?? as for the 2 years at 7 million...no it doesnt it make it fact but combine it with what what came out of williams' own mouth..that they were negoiating to sign baldwin and couldnt come to an agreement it doesnt seem to far fetched to think that the reports of a 2 year 7 million dollar deal from the sox and baldwin wanting about 5 million a year were really stretching the truth...the numbers might have been a little different but they seem to fit the situation at that time...and i didnt say it was fact..i said it was reported.. biddle had 34 saves last year..koch had 11...and imo koch is not an effective closer...effective to me would be above average...he is average or functional at best...at worst he is what he was last year...his number are horrible when matched up against the best closers in baseball..kieth foulke blows koch out of the water...if you want to argue that ill give all kinds of data to back that claim up...but how anyone can argue any different is beyond my comprehension... is biddle great..no..he was decent last year for montreal..id have accepted decent from koch..that was all i was hoping from from him anyways..couldnt even get that..btw..everyone but LA knew baldwin was hurt and done???...well one thing is for sure..evidently everyone but KW knew art howe abused billy botch down the stretch in oakland..ask Mathew from this site..i remember him saying that and many agreeing with him.. good trades kw made were... marte and colon...every other trade was horrible to little or no help at all...how anyone can argue wells for sirotka was a good trade for the sox , again , just throws me for a loop...wells was expected to win 20 games for us and lead us farther into the playoffs than in '00..instead he goes 5-7 and gets hurt and because sirotka never pitched again due to injury that made the wells trade a good one???...i dont follow that logic at all..does that mean the clayton trade was a huge success too because myette failed to live up to expectations???..if thats youre reasoning then i guess you wouldnt be able to see 2 bad trades for 1 good one.. one thing on wells..he had 12 decisions winning 5...if he could have performed up to par before the injury..going maybe 8-4 or 9-3 before being shelved , we would have been right in the thick of the rae...remember..before all the injuries of '01 hit the sox were playing horrible baseball...after wells went down the team's performance improved...not saying he is totally at fault for that but if the team played.600 baseball until thomas and wells went on the shelf..we would have probably won the division..or atleast been well in the hunt..that team won like 20 games in june after the injuries hit...even w/o those injuries...that team was already underperforming.. you keep saying that i look at things in retrospect...evaluating on anything but results leads to making excuses for losing and also gives excuses to lose in the future..williams has been here 4 years now..how else are we suppose to look at them???...he is paid a huge salary for results..not excuses....crying poor is crap..he was with this organization as a player and in management for how many years???...he knew the financial constraints when he took the job and in his own words he said he considers anything short of a championship a failure...so do i...again you fail to acknowledge he recieved a 33 million dollar increase in the '01 payroll...how is that poor???...KW pissed it all away.. as for schu as GM..he failed too...especially with the white flag trade..perhaps the biggest mistake in baseball history since harry frazziere traded babe ruth to the yankees... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 26, 2004 Author Share Posted January 26, 2004 really why not? I am not talking about his whole career with the sox. I am talking about his career after. his career after???...both is obp and BA were higher than his career average since he got traded...he got hurt early on last year and missed a significant amount of time for the first time in his career...but when he was playing his numbers (other thanSB's being down which is accounted for by his hamstering injury) were as good or better than his career numbers..durham hit 30 doubles last year in 110 games...average that out over 150 games and he was on pace for about 45 doubles...durham last year 110 games , 410 ab , 61r , 117h , 30d , 5t , 8hr, 33rbi , 285avg , 366 obp.. you think willie harris will even come close to those numbers??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 i said JB's era was the lowest of his career when he got traded to the dodgers...you come back with this... "You were shocked that Baldwin's ERA was lower in L.A.? "....how do you jump to that conclusion???..where do i say i was shocked?? as for the 2 years at 7 million...no it doesnt it make it fact but combine it with what what came out of williams' own mouth..that they were negoiating to sign baldwin and couldnt come to an agreement it doesnt seem to far fetched to think that the reports of a 2 year 7 million dollar deal from the sox and baldwin wanting about 5 million a year were really stretching the truth...the numbers might have been a little different but they seem to fit the situation at that time...and i didnt say it was fact..i said it was reported.. biddle had 34 saves last year..koch had 11...and imo koch is not an effective closer...effective to me would be above average...he is average or functional at best...at worst he is what he was last year...his number are horrible when matched up against the best closers in baseball..kieth foulke blows koch out of the water...if you want to argue that ill give all kinds of data to back that claim up...but how anyone can argue any different is beyond my comprehension... is biddle great..no..he was decent last year for montreal..id have accepted decent from koch..that was all i was hoping from from him anyways..couldnt even get that..btw..everyone but LA knew baldwin was hurt and done???...well one thing is for sure..evidently everyone but KW knew art howe abused billy botch down the stretch in oakland..ask Mathew from this site..i remember him saying that and many agreeing with him.. good trades kw made were... marte and colon...every other trade was horrible to little or no help at all...how anyone can argue wells for sirotka was a good trade for the sox , again , just throws me for a loop...wells was expected to win 20 games for us and lead us farther into the playoffs than in '00..instead he goes 5-7 and gets hurt and because sirotka never pitched again due to injury that made the wells trade a good one???...i dont follow that logic at all..does that mean the clayton trade was a huge success too because myette failed to live up to expectations???..if thats youre reasoning then i guess you wouldnt be able to see 2 bad trades for 1 good one.. one thing on wells..he had 12 decisions winning 5...if he could have performed up to par before the injury..going maybe 8-4 or 9-3 before being shelved , we would have been right in the thick of the rae...remember..before all the injuries of '01 hit the sox were playing horrible baseball...after wells went down the team's performance improved...not saying he is totally at fault for that but if the team played.600 baseball until thomas and wells went on the shelf..we would have probably won the division..or atleast been well in the hunt..that team won like 20 games in june after the injuries hit...even w/o those injuries...that team was already underperforming.. you keep saying that i look at things in retrospect...evaluating on anything but results leads to making excuses for losing and also gives excuses to lose in the future..williams has been here 4 years now..how else are we suppose to look at them???...he is paid a huge salary for results..not excuses....crying poor is crap..he was with this organization as a player and in management for how many years???...he knew the financial constraints when he took the job and in his own words he said he considers anything short of a championship a failure...so do i...again you fail to acknowledge he recieved a 33 million dollar increase in the '01 payroll...how is that poor???...KW pissed it all away.. as for schu as GM..he failed too...especially with the white flag trade..perhaps the biggest mistake in baseball history since harry frazziere traded babe ruth to the yankees... Sigh. OK ... weren't you the guy whose computer broke? If so, I think you made more sense when it was broken. You stated Baldwin was offered the deal by Williams as if it was a fact. You used that statement to base your argument. Don't backpeddle. You don't think it's possible there were discussions about a contract, and those discussions were shelved due to Baldwin's ineffectiveness/breaking down, whatever you want to call it? That stuff happens all the time in baseball. It is stupid we're even discussing James Baldwin anyway. They traded him before (or as) he was breaking down, and at least got something for him. You're using the James Baldwin trade as an example of why KW is a bad GM. Baldwin has done next to nothing since that trade. You need to find a better example. You said Biddle was a better closer than Koch and I asked if you based that on one years production. Apparantly you do, since you stated Biddle had 34 saves last year and Koch 11. Then you start comparing Koch to Foulke, which has nothing to do with Biddle/Koch. If you want to state one baseball player is better than another, strictly based on one year of performance, than I suggest your perspective is a little short sighted. Baseball people look at the bigger picture. In the case of Foulke (whom I like better than Koch by the way), the bigger perspective on that trade was getting a young left handed starting prospect. Which they did in Cotts. Who knows how Cotts will turn out. Also on Foulke, you fail to mention about Foulke signing a long term deal here. Do you really, really think he would've? Seeing those numbers he got from the Red Sox? I would say the Sox felt strongly he wouldn't resign in Chicago, and traded him while they could get something for him. Not to mention Foulke was unhappy with how he was used in 2002. And Foulke was not at his best in 2002, again, looking at the season as a whole ... and not some snippet of time. They got assets for guys who weren't gonna stay here, or be here and be productive. This is the same story with trading Sirotka, Baldwin, and Foulke. What else should they do? Just hang onto these guys because they were part of the 2000 team? I told you I agreed with you that LA couldn't have been the only team to know about Baldwin's breaking down. I'm not sure why you bring it up again. I did NOT fail to bring up or address the $33 million in payroll ... can you not read? I said a lot of that money went to Wells, and a lot of guys were due raises even before KW stepped in. On the Wells trade, they gave up NOTHING to Toronto. What the Sox got in return contributed more than what was traded away. How does that make it a horrible trade, other than in your hate KW world? The Sox said they KNEW it was a gamble given Wells physical condition. Wells' 5 wins is 5 more wins than Sirotka. Buehrle credits Wells with having a big positive influence on him. Does that not count? Incidentally, on the Clayton trade ... no, I rate that as a poor trade. That's why I said KW fails the chemistry aspect of his job. I said that earlier in the thread. You said KW makes 2 bad trades for every good one, and now you're expanding that definition to "horrible or little help at all". You said the only two good trades were the Colon deal and the Marte deal, but yesterday you said you liked the Everett deal. So which is it? I would rate the Osuna deal as a good one, he helped the Sox. I would rate the Sandy Alomar to Colorado for Pacheco a good deal, Pacheco is well thought of and is in line to compete for a starter job. Same for trading Lofton to SF for Diaz and Meaux. Lofton had outlived his usefulnes here and they weren't going to resign him, i.e. same as the others, get some assets while you can. Even the Shoeneweis deal I'd rate as a positive. Glover did nothing for the Angels. Speaking of Glover, KW made that deal too, for Scott Eyre. Eyre did little for Toronto, they traded him to SF. So there are plenty of examples of small, decent deals he did. It is most definitely NOT two bad ones for every good one. By the way, if you think any other person they bring in here to replace KW will not have many of the same problems, I think you're mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 his career after???...both is obp and BA were higher than his career average since he got traded...he got hurt early on last year and missed a significant amount of time for the first time in his career...but when he was playing his numbers (other thanSB's being down which is accounted for by his hamstering injury) were as good or better than his career numbers..durham hit 30 doubles last year in 110 games...average that out over 150 games and he was on pace for about 45 doubles...durham last year 110 games , 410 ab , 61r , 117h , 30d , 5t , 8hr, 33rbi , 285avg , 366 obp.. you think willie harris will even come close to those numbers??? I think he was terrible last year. He is awful defensively. He is not a team player. Ask SF fans what they think about him. In fact I will go check out what they think of him right now. There is more to baseball than just OBP and BA. I definately don't think he was worth the money or worth bringing back. Fact is he was hurt last year and you can't average things out over a certain amount of games. That is not the way things work. Things don't always go that way. I have heard plenty of bad about him in the clubhouse. Doing his own things and not with teammates. I was never comparing him to Willie Harris, but I do think Willie is a huge improvement in the field over Ray. Ray was also a very streaky hitter in case you forgot that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I think he was terrible last year. He is awful defensively. He is not a team player. Ask SF fans what they think about him. In fact I will go check out what they think of him right now. There is more to baseball than just OBP and BA. I definately don't think he was worth the money or worth bringing back. Fact is he was hurt last year and you can't average things out over a certain amount of games. That is not the way things work. Things don't always go that way. I have heard plenty of bad about him in the clubhouse. Doing his own things and not with teammates. I was never comparing him to Willie Harris, but I do think Willie is a huge improvement in the field over Ray. Ray was also a very streaky hitter in case you forgot that. Irish, here I think we differ a bit. I haven't seen enough of Willie to say he'll be a big improvement over Durham, obviously like you I hope for the best. Durham's supposed weakness was going to his right, we'll see how Harris does. I do think though that Ray still brings a lot to the table. Whether it's worth the money SF is paying him, there I tend to track with your opinion. Guys do have up years and down years. Ray Durham is certainly a talent, it could be he's poised for another good year. Judging him overall, I think he's a very good baseball player. I can't speak for the clubhouse stuff, I hadn't really heard one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Irish, here I think we differ a bit. I haven't seen enough of Willie to say he'll be a big improvement over Durham, obviously like you I hope for the best. Durham's supposed weakness was going to his right, we'll see how Harris does. I do think though that Ray still brings a lot to the table. Whether it's worth the money SF is paying him, there I tend to track with your opinion. Guys do have up years and down years. Ray Durham is certainly a talent, it could be he's poised for another good year. Judging him overall, I think he's a very good baseball player. I can't speak for the clubhouse stuff, I hadn't really heard one way or the other. Supposedly the clubhouse stuff is one of the reasons he was traded. JHood used to talk about it all the time and was thrilled when Ray was traded. Not that that should make much difference to anyone. I know he was traded because we were not going to resign him, but this was another reason for not wanting to sign him as well as the money issue. He wasn't the greatest at turning the double play either. The only thing I do remember him doing well was going out for pop ups to help out Frank. That is about it. Wasn't he so bad defensively that the A's used him as a DH most of the time after the trade? I don't remember him doing that well in the playoffs either. I am not saying Ray was bad for us. I liked him when he played here. I don't think he was worth the money he got and I don't think we should have resigned him if those clubhouse rumors are indeed true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 The main thing is, the Sox need to find out about Harris. Can he cut it or can't he? The only way to find out is to give him a consistent 200 AB's and let him play 2nd against RH and LH pitching. He had super AAA numbers so he should be afforded every opportunity this spring, and I think he'll get the chance to show his stuff. I really hope he does us proud. From watching him last spring in Tucson and with his AB's with the Sox, unfortunately, I need to be convinced (as if he cares about convincing me!! ). Same holds true for Rowand. Aaron has a little more history than Willie, but it's a giant "we'll see" for the White Sox up the middle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.