Couch rips the White Sox for "staying put"

[caulfield12]

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch/37087...-greg04.article

[CWSGuy406]

The Sox, on the other hand, were a World Series-ready team that needed a little help. But they re-signed Scott Podsednik when it was time to let him go. He came without the new-market price tag, and they also tried to rebuild on the fly with prospects.

 

Kudos to Couch -- someone in the media finally called the Sox on the stupid decision of having Podsednik back on this team. Tough to win when you only have one legit OFer on the opening day roster...

[Flash Tizzle]

Couch didn't exactly "rip" the White Sox for failing to dive into the inflated free-agent market or orchestrating some blockbuster trade. He just wrote that the offseason philosophy of Williams to rebuild and compete simultaneously hasn't worked out. The Cubs were criticized as well for spending $300 million and still having several glaring problems.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Flash Tizzle

[infohawk]

It's hard to believe that a piece like this can be offered up as legitimate analysis. It's almost as if he scribbled it down on a yellow legal pad while sitting on the can. His first major mistake is the oft-repeated myth that the Sox won in 2005 by playing "small-ball." Their offense was very dependent on home runs. Sure they benefited from Podsednik's ability to get on and steal some bases, but their offense has really been predicated on the home run since 2000. The big difference is that in 2005 they either led the league in pitching or were darn close to leading the league in pitching. My gosh, they are one game under .500 after one month and people are talking about firesales. I'm willing to give them another six weeks or so before I jump on the firesale bandwagon. Sheesh!!!

 

Kudos to Couch -- someone in the media finally called the Sox on the stupid decision of having Podsednik back on this team. Tough to win when you only have one legit OFer on the opening day roster...

I do agree that any trades the Sox make should bring in a young leadoff hitter prospect. I like Pods, but he seems to have some pretty chronic issues with pulling groin and abdominal muscles.

Edited May 4, 2007 by infohawk

[whitesoxfan101]

This team actually has very good pitching, the problem is Kenny's offensive philosophy going into this year:

 

1. Expected to catch lightning in a bottle with Pods, who is both bad and fragile.

 

2. Expected to catch lightning in a bottle with Erstad, who is both bad and fragile (that's worked out ok though).

 

3. Was, like many, under the false premise that last year was a breakout year at the plate for Crede, when it was actually just a career year.

 

4. Took the caculated risk that Thome would stay healthy again, which could work out still if he does after this DL stint is over, but who knows.

 

5. Relied on the contract year status to mean Dye would have a year again like 2006, when in reality that was another case of a career year, in this case from an aging player.

 

There are your problems. Our pitching is fine, but our offense is wrong in almost every way possible.

[caulfield12]

It's hard to believe that a piece like this can be offered up as legitimate analysis. It's almost as if he scribbled it down on a yellow legal pad while sitting on the can. His first major mistake is the oft-repeated myth that the Sox won in 2005 by playing "small-ball." Their offense was very dependent on home runs. Sure they benefited from Podsednik's ability to get on and steal some bases, but their offense has really been predicated on the home run since 2000. The big difference is that in 2005 they either led the league in pitching or were darn close to leading the league in pitching. My gosh, they are one game under .500 after one month and people are talking about firesales. I'm willing to give them another six weeks or so before I jump on the firesale bandwagon. Sheesh!!!

I do agree that any trades the Sox make should bring in a young leadoff hitter prospect. I like Pods, but he seems to have some pretty chronic issues with pulling groin and abdominal muscles.

 

It's going to have to be a AA/AAA leadoff prospect that we "project" can get the job done starting in 2008.

 

That's always dangerous.

 

I think they will do a behind the scenes "full court press" on Buehrle to sign an extension, and trade him in July to the highest bidder if a deal isn't worked out. They can't wait for compensation picks, because we need pitchers now, not someone who will develop in 3-4 years down the line...and then, it's a crapshoot.

 

I suggest we should also be scouring the Japanese leagues for such a hitter, as this philosphy doesn't jive with spending huge dollars on Ichiro next season, unless KW and the organization get really desperate about trying to retain their season ticket base. The problem is they can sign Ichiro for huge money and start losing attendance (to a further extent), then end up having to sell Ichiro off to the highest bidder. It's essentially the position we were in with Albert Belle...luckily, the Orioles and his contract allowed him to go to Baltimore.

 

After that, you look to trade Contreras, Dye and Crede...and do your best to keep Buehrle, Garland (if reasonable, which I have my doubts about) and Vazquez could go either way due to his age.

[CWSGuy406]

I do agree that any trades the Sox make should bring in a young leadoff hitter prospect. I like Pods, but he seems to have some pretty chronic issues with pulling groin and abdominal muscles.

 

No, the Sox should get with the times and stop turning "leadoff hitter" into a position. Find someone who can work the count, someone who will get on-base at a .350 or better clip.

 

Oh, right, we had that guy on the roster going into the winter in Tad Iguchi. But God forbid, he's not going to steal 45 bases so f*** it, he can't leadoff. He can hit #2 but he can't leadoff, his average would probably plumit and his whole world would come crashing down.

 

The Sox took a stupid risk, assuming a guy who hasn't been healthy (or good, for that matter) since the middle of 2005, would stay healthy. Not to mention that if said player isn't 100% healthy, he isn't in the least bit useful. Now they're paying for it. Lesson (hopefully) learned.

[Flash Tizzle]

It's hard to believe that a piece like this can be offered up as legitimate analysis. It's almost as if he scribbled it down on a yellow legal pad while sitting on the can. His first major mistake is the oft-repeated myth that the Sox won in 2005 by playing "small-ball." Their offense was very dependent on home runs. Sure they benefited from Podsednik's ability to get on and steal some bases, but their offense has really been predicated on the home run since 2000. The big difference is that in 2005 they either led the league in pitching or were darn close to leading the league in pitching. My gosh, they are one game under .500 after one month and people are talking about firesales. I'm willing to give them another six weeks or so before I jump on the firesale bandwagon. Sheesh!!!

What's wrong with talking about the possibility of a firesale? No different then discussing what moves may occur midseason if we're in contention.

 

I'm giving them a month to rebound before I begin tuning up the firesale bandwagon. June 11th is my self imposed date for determing this. If we're seven or more games out of playoff contention, a tough decision has to be made.

I do agree that any trades the Sox make should bring in a young leadoff hitter prospect. I like Pods, but he seems to have some pretty chronic issues with pulling groin and abdominal muscles.

Cunningham may be your young leadoff hitting prospect.

[whitesoxfan101]

Cunningham may be your young leadoff hitting prospect.

 

He is, but he's too far away to bank on that. We gotta find a stopgap.

[caulfield12]

This team actually has very good pitching, the problem is Kenny's offensive philosophy going into this year:

 

1. Expected to catch lightning in a bottle with Pods, who is both bad and fragile.

 

2. Expected to catch lightning in a bottle with Erstad, who is both bad and fragile (that's worked out ok though).

 

3. Was, like many, under the false premise that last year was a breakout year at the plate for Crede, when it was actually just a career year.

 

4. Took the caculated risk that Thome would stay healthy again, which could work out still if he does after this DL stint is over, but who knows.

 

5. Relied on the contract year status to mean Dye would have a year again like 2006, when in reality that was another case of a career year, in this case from an aging player.

 

There are your problems. Our pitching is fine, but our offense is wrong in almost every way possible.

 

The lightning in a bottle approach worked in 2005, but there wasn't any pressure on that team like there had/has been in 2006 and 2007.

 

The biggest example of things breaking the right way was going from Takatsu to Hermanson to a AA castoff and not missing a beat. How many times has the WS winner gone through 3 closers in one season? And Politte and Cotts were incredible that year, something they proved not to be repeatable.

 

But gambling on Pods, Erstad, Thome's health, Crede's back, Dye's age and leg problems/slowing down, Contreras...there just wasn't much certainty going into this season. The odds were against KW being able to pull it off twice.

 

Erstad has been a decent surprise, Danks has been better than anyone could have imagined, the bullpen has been awesome with the exception of the two returning pitchers (Jenks and Thornton) we expected the most out of.

 

Of course, it also comes down to the failure of Borchard and not producing an impact bat in the line-up over a five year period now since Crede and Rowand.

Edited May 4, 2007 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

I think they will do a behind the scenes "full court press" on Buehrle to sign an extension, and trade him in July to the highest bidder if a deal isn't worked out. They can't wait for compensation picks, because we need pitchers now, not someone who will develop in 3-4 years down the line...and then, it's a crapshoot.

Actually, I think in terms of having pitchers "Now", that's the one spot where we're going to be in pretty good shape for the near future. We have at least 7 bullpen arms right now including 3 lefties, so even if some of the guys struggle or get hurt, we have depth there, and there's some possible guys working their way up through the system to follow this backlog. In the starting rotation, even if Mark leaves, we're 4 deep next season including Danks and Garland, so we even have a lefty in there. And we have a boatload of depth at the AA and up level that will compete for a 5th spot next year if one does open up...Floyd, Haeger, Phillips, Gio, Russel. Some of those guys are struggling in the minors to start this season, and some will probably have to be moved so that we don't lose them, but in terms of pitching, we're deep even if we decide to trade Garland and lose Buehrle.

 

It's the position players right now where we need some depth. Right now, it seems like almost all of our position prospects are hitting a wall simultaneously. This is the potential disaster. We don't have nearly enough money to bring in a FA or resign a guy to play LF, CF, RF, 3rd base, 2nd base, SS, C, and DH before the start of the 09 season. Think about that...as far as I can tell, the only position player we have locked up beyond the end of 08 is Konerko. We need to get contributions from quite a few of Fields, Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, and maybe Cunningham, and we need them ASAP. And if we deal someone, we need to find pieces to fill in some of those holes. Otherwise, the only way we stay competitive is if we spend Yankee dollars to hold our lineup together as they age.

[fathom]

I'm a big fan of this article, as I was constantly stating during the offseason that we should have given it one last shot this year, and then went into full rebuilding mode after this season.

[caulfield12]

What's wrong with talking about the possibility of a firesale? No different then discussing what moves may occur midseason if we're in contention.

 

I'm giving them a month to rebound before I begin tuning up the firesale bandwagon. June 11th is my self imposed date for determing this. If we're seven or more games out of playoff contention, a tough decision has to be made.

 

Cunningham may be your young leadoff hitting prospect.

 

We might be 7 out after THIS weekend.

 

Cleveland has the look of a team about to go off on an extended run, Barfield is picking it up and they just got Lee back too. Despite Wedge not being a very good manager, we're going to be in the chase position all season long, something the White Sox have never done, as 2000 and 2005 were pretty much runaways that each stalled near the end of those seasons.

[soxfan3530]

I was just listening to silvy and waddle and they were talking about how couch is a "mini Mariotti." i totally agree. he just kind of writes things down and does no research to back it up and is a total windsock. He will be the first (along with jay) to praise the sox if/when they start hitting.

[fathom]

It's the position players right now where we need some depth. Right now, it seems like almost all of our position prospects are hitting a wall simultaneously. This is the potential disaster. We don't have nearly enough money to bring in a FA or resign a guy to play LF, CF, RF, 3rd base, 2nd base, SS, C, and DH before the start of the 09 season. Think about that...as far as I can tell, the only position player we have locked up beyond the end of 08 is Konerko. We need to get contributions from quite a few of Fields, Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, and maybe Cunningham, and we need them ASAP. And if we deal someone, we need to find pieces to fill in some of those holes. Otherwise, the only way we stay competitive is if we spend Yankee dollars to hold our lineup together as they age.

 

Our inability to produce offensive talent from our minors over the past 3 years is really coming back to haunt us. It's pathetic that we couldn't even call up someone to be a DH at the major league level and expect them to hit .200. I guess it's not surprising when you see how bad the hitting is at Charlotte.

[caulfield12]

Actually, I think in terms of having pitchers "Now", that's the one spot where we're going to be in pretty good shape for the near future. We have at least 7 bullpen arms right now including 3 lefties, so even if some of the guys struggle or get hurt, we have depth there, and there's some possible guys working their way up through the system to follow this backlog. In the starting rotation, even if Mark leaves, we're 4 deep next season including Danks and Garland, so we even have a lefty in there. And we have a boatload of depth at the AA and up level that will compete for a 5th spot next year if one does open up...Floyd, Haeger, Phillips, Gio, Russel. Some of those guys are struggling in the minors to start this season, and some will probably have to be moved so that we don't lose them, but in terms of pitching, we're deep even if we decide to trade Garland and lose Buehrle.

 

It's the position players right now where we need some depth. Right now, it seems like almost all of our position prospects are hitting a wall simultaneously. This is the potential disaster. We don't have nearly enough money to bring in a FA or resign a guy to play LF, CF, RF, 3rd base, 2nd base, SS, C, and DH before the start of the 09 season. Think about that...as far as I can tell, the only position player we have locked up beyond the end of 08 is Konerko. We need to get contributions from quite a few of Fields, Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, and maybe Cunningham, and we need them ASAP. And if we deal someone, we need to find pieces to fill in some of those holes. Otherwise, the only way we stay competitive is if we spend Yankee dollars to hold our lineup together as they age.

 

We're not going to be spending Yankee dollars, but we had question marks surrounding seven of our nine positions coming into this season...

 

LF...Can Pods return to health? NO.

 

CF...Can Erstad be a regular player again or will BA take the job? Mixed results

 

RF...Will Dye be back? Probably not, either for 2008 or to the level of his past 18 months of play.

 

3B....Crede (see Dye), will he be back, will his back be back? Not so far.

 

SS...Uribe, will the real Juan Uribe please stand up? Unfortunately, he has...he's a complementary player, nothing more.

 

2B...Iguchi, will he be back in 2008?

 

1B...Konerko, can he repeat and sustain his level of performance without hitting another 2003 slump?

 

DH...Thome, can he stay healthy?

 

C...AJ, will he continue to be a dangerous doubles hitter or a so-so average "power hitter"? Will his defense continue to wane?

 

When you look at the collective whole, Erstad's rebound is about the only positive so far, and the guy's hitting .258. Uribe is back to being Uribe. Iguchi is solid, but he's not the type of player you can build around at this point in his career either.

[Flash Tizzle]

It's the position players right now where we need some depth. Right now, it seems like almost all of our position prospects are hitting a wall simultaneously. This is the potential disaster. We don't have nearly enough money to bring in a FA or resign a guy to play LF, CF, RF, 3rd base, 2nd base, SS, C, and DH before the start of the 09 season. Think about that...as far as I can tell, the only position player we have locked up beyond the end of 08 is Konerko. We need to get contributions from quite a few of Fields, Anderson, Sweeney, Owens, and maybe Cunningham, and we need them ASAP. And if we deal someone, we need to find pieces to fill in some of those holes. Otherwise, the only way we stay competitive is if we spend Yankee dollars to hold our lineup together as they age.

I agree -- now more than ever before we're going to need production from within the system. And not just league average replacement players. Prospects capable of competing within an American League division comprised of deep pitching staffs and numerous Top 10 positional players.

 

It's difficult enough to find average players to fill the positions you mentioned with a 100 million dollar payroll. If the payroll decreases marginally within the next several seasons because of declining ticket sales, it'll be even more improbable to field a contending team.

 

Looking at our problems in the immediate future, if Sweeney and Fields are not worthy of full-time positions to begin 2008 we're going to be in trouble. I believe the payroll for next season is already bordering on 95 million. Definitely not a good situation we find ourselves in.

[Harry Chappas]

Couch, Mariotti and Slezak are all terrible jounalists. When was the last timne one of them wrote a positive piece. Although I must say I stopped reading them last year. It is easy to say what a GM did is wrong but then explain what the options were.

 

Roto trades and spending other people's money is real easy when your ass is not on the line. That is what each of these writers do.

[RockRaines]

Couch didn't exactly "rip" the White Sox for failing to dive into the inflated free-agent market or orchestrating some blockbuster trade. He just wrote that the offseason philosophy of Williams to rebuild and compete simultaneously hasn't worked out. The Cubs were criticized as well for spending $300 million and still having several glaring problems.

Funny how some of the rebuilding has really helped this ballclub though. Trading for Danks looks like the best thing that could have happened with the decline of FG and the horrendous starts by BMAC.

[Dick Allen]

Funny how some of the rebuilding has really helped this ballclub though. Trading for Danks looks like the best thing that could have happened with the decline of FG and the horrendous starts by BMAC.

If their performances continue like they have been, you're absolutely right. However, considering the White Sox have yet to win a game Danks has started it really hasn't matter. 10-2 losses are the same in the standings as 3-2 losses. Danks could be real good. He does have to keep the ball in the park. His ERA calculated using runs scored not via longball must be under 1.00.

[infohawk]

What's wrong with talking about the possibility of a firesale? No different then discussing what moves may occur midseason if we're in contention.

I was probably misunderstood. You're right, there's nothing wrong with talking about what might be done in the event of a firesale. I was directing my comments at those fans that seemed resigned to the fact that a firesale was inevitable. Actually, if it comes down to a firesale, KW has certain pieces he could move that might very well bring in a pretty darn good stable of young talent. I know these things can get iffy because you never know how a young player will pan out, but Dye, Crede or one or two of our pitchers could potentially bring something of value in return in multiple trades. I understand the risks, however.

Edited May 4, 2007 by infohawk

[The Ginger Kid]

Our inability to produce offensive talent from our minors over the past 3 years is really coming back to haunt us. It's pathetic that we couldn't even call up someone to be a DH at the major league level and expect them to hit .200. I guess it's not surprising when you see how bad the hitting is at Charlotte.

 

I'll buy this.

 

It's easy for a guy like Couch to sit back and criticize the non-moves, however I would like to read someone with more knowledge (Phil Rogers) offer some genuine options that were available to the Sox that were not moved on. I like to think we could've gotten a genuine leadoff hitter for a 17 game winner, addressing an immediate need. It's just that there are no guarantees and the Sox standing pat was a gamble. Still...it's too early to be putting a fork in this season.

[Wanne]

The guy lost my interest when he said: "No Bullpen(S)". Seriously...I think these guys think of this stuff while on the can and scribble it on a roll of toilet paper (which is actually very fitting). The only guy I really see gone is Crede. Dye...not so much...scribes think he'll command big dollars...I don't see it. Garland...unless you get a tremendous package...what's the point of trading him and just letting his contract expire...and take the picks at the end of it. I'm not of the, "the sky is falling" quite yet...but these guys better get their collective heads outta their asses soon.

[scenario]

Greg Couch is a Jay Marriotti wannabe who doesn't analyze sports... he simply wants to start 'fires' and get people's attention. Don't forget it was a Couch article that kicked off the whole Ozzie-Marriotti fiasco.

Edited May 4, 2007 by scenario

[Soxfest]

I agree KW could of done more with added revenue, but Cubs spending money 1 year out of 20 is hardly a change in philosophie when team is being sold and Tribune will not be paying the freight!