KW Speaks about Buehrle's NTC

[iamshack]

How impressive is that percentage when for 5 of those seasons the Sox played 2 of the worst teams in basebal 38 times a season, and Cleveland as well for about 3 or 4 years was brutal.

 

He inherited a team that very well could have been in the same place Cleveland, Kansas City, Detroit were those years they were bad. And he refused to accept that and brought in players that at least made us competitive.

 

I know, I know, he inherited a division winner. One that was based on smoke and mirrors, so don't even go there. He also inherited a top-5 farm system. That same top-5 farm system that produced absolutely nothing of any consequence.

[southsider2k5]

Silly facts..

 

It amazes me how easy it is to discount all of those things, such as a World Series title, but to make a big deal about second place finishes being bad. I used to hear that people would buy tickets forever if the Sox threw all their money into winning a World Series just one time. What happen to all of those people? Now we are stuck with the perseption that winning a World Series doesn't make you a winner...

[WCSox]

That was something that I asked a couple of weeks ago... Who, that the Sox got rid of, has proven them wrong in their history of not giving out long term pitching contracts?

 

Yep, and the one veteran FA pitcher that they gave the big contract to in that era was a complete bust. That might influence their negotiation strategy a bit as well.

[dagotony06]

He has had nothing but winning seasons in his tenure, he has a .537 winning percentage (best in team history), has never finished lower than 3rd, AND has a world series ring. Feel free to criticize, he is certainly not perfect - but he absolutely has a history of winning.

But KW says he doesn't base winning on just a good record. Him and Ozzie both said last year, big deal we won 90 games, we didn't win the division. So to me that is failure. 2005 was a great and MAGICAL year. The key word in that sentence is MAGICAL. If you want to be considered a great GM you have to sustain making the playoffs every year or at least every other year. Sort of like the Twins, A's, Boston, Angels. Not just be a one year wonder like we were. In my eyes he blew it lasy year at the deadline when he didn't bring anyone in to help this team at the deadline last year. So I have alot of to criticize when it comes to KW. But this is his seventh year, so to me 1 out of 7 isn't a good percentage when it comes to judging if you are a success or a failure.

 

He inherited a team that very well could have been in the same place Cleveland, Kansas City, Detroit were those years they were bad. And he refused to accept that and brought in players that at least made us competitive.

 

I know, I know, he inherited a division winner. One that was based on smoke and mirrors, so don't even go there. He also inherited a top-5 farm system. That same top-5 farm system that produced absolutely nothing of any consequence.

Mark Buerhle he inherited, i guess he is nothing. Joe creded was inherited I guess he was nothing. Aaron Rowand was nothing, Magglio nothing. Wow those are some pretty good nothings.

[Dick Allen]

He inherited a team that very well could have been in the same place Cleveland, Kansas City, Detroit were those years they were bad. And he refused to accept that and brought in players that at least made us competitive.

 

I know, I know, he inherited a division winner. One that was based on smoke and mirrors, so don't even go there. He also inherited a top-5 farm system. That same top-5 farm system that produced absolutely nothing of any consequence.

Considering KW's job before becoming GM, its laughable you would give him a break on an overrated farm system. He had Lee, Ordonez, Thomas, Crede, Valentin, Rowand, Buerhle, Garland, Durham just to name a few players built into the system when he took over. Unless he gave them away, which he did with Garland when he traded him for a broken down Erstad only to luckily have the Angels heirarchy not approve the trade, and he did give away Durham. With that talent base, the really were never in any danger of losing the 100+ games KC and Detroit seemed to flirt with almost every season.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Dick Allen

[dagotony06]

It amazes me how easy it is to discount all of those things, such as a World Series title, but to make a big deal about second place finishes being bad. I used to hear that people would buy tickets forever if the Sox threw all their money into winning a World Series just one time. What happen to all of those people? Now we are stuck with the perseption that winning a World Series doesn't make you a winner...

Second place is first loser. That's what I was always taught. They really didn't throw all their money into winning the World series that year niether. They signed a bunch of cheap players that gelled together and made a mgical run. They didn't overpay for anyone, as a matter of fact they got rid of alot of payroll, when they let Maggs go an Lee. I remember that people weren't too hapy about that. Winning one World series doesn't make you a winner for the rest of eternity. Sustaining that winning does. Winning your division, like the Twins, they sustain the winning. Just because we won a world series we should be satisfied with that. Not me my friend.

[WCSox]

But KW says he doesn't base winning on just a good record. Him and Ozzie both said last year, big deal we won 90 games, we didn't win the division. So to me that is failure. 2005 was a great and MAGICAL year. The key word in that sentence is MAGICAL. If you want to be considered a great GM you have to sustain making the playoffs every year or at least every other year. Sort of like the Twins, A's, Boston, Angels.

 

Um, sort of like two teams who haven't won crap in the past 15 years and two who haven't done any better than us?

 

How MAGICAL was it for you to watch the Sox get swept out of the playoffs in 2000 and to watch them lose to inferior teams in '93 and '83? Personally, I didn't enjoy it very much.

 

In my eyes he blew it lasy year at the deadline when he didn't bring anyone in to help this team at the deadline last year.

 

Yeah, damn Kenny for not replacing the "anchor" of his rotation who was getting hit all over the place last summer. Oh, what, that's the guy who Kenny is supposed to re-sign now. My bad.

 

So I have alot of to criticize when it comes to KW. But this is his seventh year, so to me 1 out of 7 isn't a good percentage when it comes to judging if you are a success or a failure.

 

What about John Schuerholz, who is consdiered one of the best GMs in baseball? He's only 1 out of 17.

Edited July 2, 2007 by WCSox

[iamshack]

Considering KW's job before becoming GM, its laughable you would give him a break on an overrated farm system. He had Lee, Ordonez, Thomas, Crede, Valentin, Rowand, Buerhle, Garland, just to name a few players built into the system when he took over. Unless he gave them away, which he did with Garland when he traded him for a broken down Erstad only to luckily have the Angels heirarchy not approve the trade. With that talent base, the really were never in any danger of losing the 100+ games KC and Detroit seemed to flirt with almost every season.

 

I didn't give him a break on an overrated farm system as Vice President of Player Development. I gave him a break as GM. He built the system that was rated highly. Unfortunately, nothing panned out. He was intelligent enough to trade much of it away as GM.

 

He did have Lee/Maggs/Thomas/Buehrle. But Crede/Rowand/Garland didn't develop into anything until 2004 or so. Valentin sucked. Don't know why he was even mentioned. And Thomas was injured for nearly two full seasons and the majority of another during the 5 years Williams had him.

 

The Garland trade came after Erstand had one of the most impressive seasons ever as a leadoff hitter and Jerry Manual had nearly ruined Jon Garland through his inept managing.

 

He could have trusted in his farm system and continued with the "Kids can play" nonsense, and he didn't. He was aggressive, built up the rotation, and avoided the mistakes teams like Detroit and Kansas City continually made.

[dagotony06]

Um, sort of like two teams who haven't won crap in the past 15 years and two who haven't done any better than us?

 

How MAGICAL was it for you to watch the Sox get swept out of the playoffs in 2000 and to watch them lose to inferior teams in '93 and '83? Personally, I didn't enjoy it very much.

Yeah, damn Kenny for not replacing the "anchor" of his rotation who was getting hit all over the place last summer. Oh, what, that's the guy who Kenny is supposed to re-sign now. My bad.

What about John Schuerholz, who is consdiered one of the best GMs in baseball? He's only 1 out of 17.

At least they made ot to the playoffs in 83, 93, 2000.!!! You would rather not even make the playoffs?? That's a loser's mentality. I'm not getting your point. I'd rather make it to the playoffs and let the chips fall where they may, than to be sitting at home in 3rd place or lower, without the opportunity of seeing what we can do in the playoffs.

 

I never said I would have replaced Buerhle in the rotation. I don't remember putting that in my last post. I said he didn't do anything to help this team at the deadline. Why would you replace Buerhle. he had a bad 2nd half, but he wasn't the reason we didn't make the playoffs. Our offense needed a jump start and KW didn't provide one. Didn't address that over the offseason neither, oh yeah he did I forgor, he signed Erstad. BRILLIANT!!

 

The Braves won their division I think 14 or 15 times in a row. To me that's what you judge a winning franchise on. They won a World Series just like us, but even though they haven't won another,they still have sustained a winning ORG. by winning their division. To compare us to the Braves isn't a good argument. They are far superior. Their Org. blows ours away. That's just a sillt argument there.

[Dick Allen]

I didn't give him a break on an overrated farm system as Vice President of Player Development. I gave him a break as GM. He built the system that was rated highly. Unfortunately, nothing panned out. He was intelligent enough to trade much of it away as GM.

 

He did have Lee/Maggs/Thomas/Buehrle. But Crede/Rowand/Garland didn't develop into anything until 2004 or so. Valentin sucked. Don't know why he was even mentioned. And Thomas was injured for nearly two full seasons and the majority of another during the 5 years Williams had him.

 

The Garland trade came after Erstand had one of the most impressive seasons ever as a leadoff hitter and Jerry Manual had nearly ruined Jon Garland through his inept managing.

 

He could have trusted in his farm system and continued with the "Kids can play" nonsense, and he didn't. He was aggressive, built up the rotation, and avoided the mistakes teams like Detroit and Kansas City continually made.

KW took over after the 2000 season, Valentin was still a pretty good player. The Erstad/Garland trade happened after Erstad hit .258 with 9 homers and a pretty weak OBP. Garland was 22 years old, and its laughable you think Jerry Manuel ruined him. I think you buy Hawk's BS a little too much. I guess if your happy with 82 or 83 win seasons or finishing in 2nd or 3rd place almost every year, KW could be a hero. I like winning. Which to me means making the playoffs.

[iamshack]

The Braves won their division I think 14 or 15 times in a row. To me that's what you judge a winning franchise on. They won a World Series just like us, but even though they haven't won another,they still have sustained a winning ORG. by winning their division. To compare us to the Braves isn't a good argument. They are far superior. Their Org. blows ours away. That's just a sillt argument there.

 

The Braves run is probably the most impressive run in modern sports history. I still don't think many understand how that happened.

 

I guess every other organization is a failure.

[dagotony06]

I didn't give him a break on an overrated farm system as Vice President of Player Development. I gave him a break as GM. He built the system that was rated highly. Unfortunately, nothing panned out. He was intelligent enough to trade much of it away as GM.

 

He did have Lee/Maggs/Thomas/Buehrle. But Crede/Rowand/Garland didn't develop into anything until 2004 or so. Valentin sucked. Don't know why he was even mentioned. And Thomas was injured for nearly two full seasons and the majority of another during the 5 years Williams had him.

 

The Garland trade came after Erstand had one of the most impressive seasons ever as a leadoff hitter and Jerry Manual had nearly ruined Jon Garland through his inept managing.

 

He could have trusted in his farm system and continued with the "Kids can play" nonsense, and he didn't. He was aggressive, built up the rotation, and avoided the mistakes teams like Detroit and Kansas City continually made.

The 4 trades that stand out to me the most is when he traded for Robbie Alomar twice, and Carl Everett twice. Carl helped in 2005 I give him that, but I don't know many GM's that ever traded for 2 guys 2 different times that were pretty much over the hill. Those trades aren't the marks of a very brigth GM.

[NorthSideSox72]

I would suggest that a GM's job is to put the right talent in the system to make the team as competitive as possible. Given the stats on KW I mentioned earlier, I think he has done that as well as almost anyone in the game.

 

As for taking those competitive teams and winning the big games with them, to make the post-season and succeed there, I think that lies mostly with the players and coaches on the field.

[iamshack]

KW took over after the 2000 season, Valentin was still a pretty good player. The Erstad/Garland trade happened after Erstad hit .258 with 9 homers and a pretty weak OBP. Garland was 22 years old, and its laughable you think Jerry Manuel ruined him. I think you buy Hawk's BS a little too much. I guess if your happy with 82 or 83 win seasons or finishing in 2nd or 3rd place almost every year, KW could be a hero. I like winning. Which to me means making the playoffs.

 

You're right about the Erstad/Garland trade. Erstad was one year removed from a 240 hit season. My mistake.

 

I didn't say Jerry Manual ruined Jon, I said he nearly ruined him. And maybe I did buy Hawk's bs a bit too much in the past, but I don't think it's entirely coincidence that Jon started thriving under Ozzie Guillen, a manager who gave him a chance to learn how to get out of his own jams. It's pretty impressive how he has come along in doing so, wouldn't you agree?

 

Oh, and another thing. I like to win as well. And by no means has KW been infallible. But I'm not going to suggest his firing, that's for damn sure.

 

Just curious, whom would you like to see replace him?

Edited July 2, 2007 by iamshack

[WCSox]

At least they made ot to the playoffs in 83, 93, 2000.!!! You would rather not even make the playoffs?? That's a loser's mentality.

 

No, a loser's mentality is being excited about making the playoffs and not winning a single playoff series. As a Colts fan, I can tell you that it gets old very quickly.

 

I never said I would have replaced Buerhle in the rotation. I don't remember putting that in my last post. I said he didn't do anything to help this team at the deadline.

 

You're right. He absolutely blew it when he failed to trade for Johan Santana and Chris Carpenter. What in the hell was he supposed to do when his best two starting pitchers weren't performing???

 

The Braves won their division I think 14 or 15 times in a row. To me that's what you judge a winning franchise on.

 

The Bills appeared in four straight Super Bowls and nobody considered them a marquee franchise.

 

They won a World Series just like us, but even though they haven't won another,they still have sustained a winning ORG. by winning their division. To compare us to the Braves isn't a good argument. They are far superior. Their Org. blows ours away .

 

I wouldn't say that. They blew us away in the '90s, but they haven't done squat since then.

[dagotony06]

The Braves run is probably the most impressive run in modern sports history. I still don't think many understand how that happened.

 

I guess every other organization is a failure.

I was just responding to someone who brought up the Braves Org. But to say you don't know how it happened, here's a little insight. They had three young pitchers that they locked up to long term deals, and built around them. I think that's a pretty good model to start with. Not like our GM who wants to trade away a solid guy because he refuses to give him a NTC, and most likely he will do the same with another young and solid starter either this year or next. But there is a little insight into how the Braves had the run that they did. They weren't afraid to give their allegiance to their starters unlike KW who wants to build a rotation around the ever immortal JV, and JC, and rookies, Danks, Floyd and the our savior GIO!!!

[southsider2k5]

Second place is first loser. That's what I was always taught. They really didn't throw all their money into winning the World series that year niether. They signed a bunch of cheap players that gelled together and made a mgical run. They didn't overpay for anyone, as a matter of fact they got rid of alot of payroll, when they let Maggs go an Lee. I remember that people weren't too hapy about that. Winning one World series doesn't make you a winner for the rest of eternity. Sustaining that winning does. Winning your division, like the Twins, they sustain the winning. Just because we won a world series we should be satisfied with that. Not me my friend.

 

So by your definition there is no better GM in all of baseball during the Williams tenure, because no GM has won more than one World Series. In the Al, the Twins, Indians, Royals, Tigers, Yankees, Blue Jays, Devil Rays, Orioles, Athletics, Mariners, and Rangers all have worse GMs because they have never won a WS, while Boston and Anaheims GMs are on par with Kenny, because they have won once since Kenny came in as GM.

[WCSox]

I was just responding to someone who brought up the Braves Org. But to say you don't know how it happened, here's a little insight. They had three young pitchers that they locked up to long term deals, and built around them. I think that's a pretty good model to start with.

 

Did those three young pitchers require $200 million in guaranteed money back then?

[Dick Allen]

You're right about the Erstad/Garland trade. Erstad was one year removed from a 240 hit season. My mistake.

 

I didn't say Jerry Manual ruined Jon, I said he nearly ruined him. And maybe I did buy Hawk's bs a bit too much in the past, but I don't think it's entirely coincidence that Jon started thriving under Ozzie Guillen, a manager who gave him a chance to learn how to get out of his own jams. It's pretty impressive how he has come along in doing so, wouldn't you agree?

You did notice Garland's first year under Ozzie was worse than his last year under Manuel. Garland matured as a pitcher. Manuel had to lift him, he had to win games.

 

Interesting that a GM would be willing to trade a guy 1 year removed from a 240 hit season and a great glove guy, team guy, all else (I do admire the way Erstad plays, and all the intangibles he brings, he's just not all that good) for a 22 year old almost ruined pitcher. I personally think Garland would have had the same success in recent years no matter who was making out the line-up card. I think he matured and became a better pitcher. Its funny how with some young pitchers managers get praised when they pitch a good game and the manager yanks them before something bad can happen. I hear Hawk say all the time that it leaves a good thought in the young pitcher's mind. I guess Manuel's insistence not to use the wheel play really pissed Hawk off, although he didn't get mad at Ozzie after he stopped using it after a couple of months.

[kapkomet]

I wonder if these guys have anything to do with the Sox and their unwillingness to resign Buehrle:

 

Fernandez, 79 wins with Sox, 28 wins after being traded at the age of 26

Alvarez, 67 wins with Sox, 35 wins after being traded at the age of 27

McDowell, 91 wins with Sox, 36 wins after being traded at the age of 28

Baldwin, 79 wins with Sox, 10 wins after being traded at the age of 29

 

These guys only had marginal success after leaving the Sox even though they all commanded larger contracts from their future teams.

 

Are these guys next:

Buehrle, 102 wins with Sox, 28 yrs old

Garland, 88 wins with Sox, 27 yrs old

Damn good post.

 

That's the point, actually.

 

Personally, I think MB will buck the trend. But, it sure gives you an idea what management is thinking.

[iamshack]

I was just responding to someone who brought up the Braves Org. But to say you don't know how it happened, here's a little insight. They had three young pitchers that they locked up to long term deals, and built around them. I think that's a pretty good model to start with. Not like our GM who wants to trade away a solid guy because he refuses to give him a NTC, and most likely he will do the same with another young and solid starter either this year or next. But there is a little insight into how the Braves had the run that they did. They weren't afraid to give their allegiance to their starters unlike KW who wants to build a rotation around the ever immortal JV, and JC, and rookies, Danks, Floyd and the our savior GIO!!!

 

Well, I think quite a bit of it was luck as well. Maddux/Glavine are sure-fire hall of famers, and Smoltz is probably as well. I understand they locked these guys up, but our situation isn't synonymous with theirs. If we had the farm system right now to bring in the young players that could produce, I would be all for signing Mark and Jon to long-term deals. But we don't.

 

Let me ask you this. Say we lock up Mark and Jon. Who is going to play the field for us and produce?

[Dick Allen]

So by your definition there is no better GM in all of baseball during the Williams tenure, because no GM has won more than one World Series. In the Al, the Twins, Indians, Royals, Tigers, Yankees, Blue Jays, Devil Rays, Orioles, Athletics, Mariners, and Rangers all have worse GMs because they have never won a WS, while Boston and Anaheims GMs are on par with Kenny, because they have won once since Kenny came in as GM.

KW is definitely not living up to his quote you have at the bottom of your posts. When is he going to start with the answering?

[Steff]

It amazes me how easy it is to discount all of those things, such as a World Series title, but to make a big deal about second place finishes being bad. I used to hear that people would buy tickets forever if the Sox threw all their money into winning a World Series just one time. What happen to all of those people? Now we are stuck with the perseption that winning a World Series doesn't make you a winner...

 

 

 

 

 

LOL. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

[iamshack]

You did notice Garland's first year under Ozzie was worse than his last year under Manuel. Garland matured as a pitcher. Manuel had to lift him, he had to win games.

 

Yeah, want to know why it was worse? Because Jon had to learn how to get out of his own jams instead of leaving in the 4th and 5th inning everytime he got himself in any trouble. We are seeing the results of the learning process now, aren't we?

 

Manual had to lift him to win games, but Ozzie didn't?

 

I understand part of Jon's success as a pitcher came as a result of his natural progression and maturation. I also have seen a crapload of pitchers never take that step, so to assume it was going to happen regardless or automatically is a bit of a leap if you ask me.

 

I give a lot of credit to Ozzie for Jon's success, and I don't think it is entirely coincidental that Jon has become the pitcher he has under Ozzie.

[WCSox]

Well, I think quite a bit of it was luck as well. Maddux/Glavine are sure-fire hall of famers, and Smoltz is probably as well. I understand they locked these guys up, but our situation isn't synonymous with theirs.

 

Absolutely. NO team is going to carry three future-HOF pitchers in their 10 most productive years at the same time these days. It's financially impossible.