Who would you like to see fired the most?

[Gregory Pratt]

 

Dude, you're killing me. That right there sums up why we see things differently. You think I'm wrong... I don't think anyone is wrong. Because baseball doesn't work that way. There is no magic formula, some secret that only a select few know. If there was, baseball would be boring as hell. Instead, its a game of chance and odds, and everything else I mentioned.

 

Want an analogy? Put together a lineup of random MLB players. Let's say the lineup contains both A-Rod and Gustavo Molina (stop laughing). On any given day, Molina might go 3-for-4 and knock in the winning run, while A-Rod gets the golden sombrero. So do we fire A-Rod? Or do we know that 5 games out of 7, he'll do better than Molina. Kind of like 5 years out of 7, KW put teams out there that were in the hunt into the second half, which by nature means the Sox were among the top third of teams competitively. Therefore, KW is better than your average GM.

 

So, I say keep him.

 

If this last analogy doesn't work for anyone, then I give up.

 

That's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard, bro. Seven years out of seven those GMs are better GMs than KW.

[fathom]

Uh, because Mike Gonzalez is very good and they couldn't really have foreseen his injury and they wanted to build up the bullpen. It wasn't a bad move at all especially since they got Lillibridge. But no, LaRoche wouldn't have made a big difference at first this year. He hasn't been that good at all. That trade "killed the Braves"? Give me a break.

 

They got such little production from Thorman to start the year. Now, they're severely lacking in starting pitching. Who knows what type of starting pitchers they might have been able to acquire if they still had someone like Salty to offer. There were all sorts of concerns about Mike Gonzalez's elbow last year, as his velocity started to decrease.

[fathom]

BTW, why are you so sure they won't offer Renteria for Garland? They already did this year, and it's a definite possibility again this offseason.

[Gregory Pratt]

They got such little production from Thorman to start the year. Now, they're severely lacking in starting pitching. Who knows what type of starting pitchers they might have been able to acquire if they still had someone like Salty to offer. There were all sorts of concerns about Mike Gonzalez's elbow last year, as his velocity started to decrease.

 

I still contend that that trade didn't kill anything. I will say, though, that even Schuerholz makes mistakes. I'm not sure that was one, per se. LaRoche certainly hasn't been a loss, so in that sense it wasn't. Could he have made a different move? Perhaps. But he'd still have probably needed to up the production at first base, so it isn't exactly

 

NOLaRoche//GonzalezNO =/ Salty for Pitcher

[Gregory Pratt]

BTW, why are you so sure they won't offer Renteria for Garland? They already did this year, and it's a definite possibility again this offseason.

 

Because there will be similar pitchers available via free agency and probably better ones. I'd take Silva for some cash over Garland for Renteria. Besides, we wouldn't do Renteria for Garland, Garland's losing a ton of value, etc. etc.

 

Garland isn't going for Renteria straight-up.

[Gregory Pratt]

I've got work to do, though, so I'll talk to you guys later. I'm done, for tonight, listing GMs that are much better than KW, especially against terrible arguments like "The Ring!" which somehow don't apply to Gillick. But to much better GMs? Like Beane? Oh, no, they don't have a ring. KW do. KW is an elite GM. KW is top ten. Top five! Top quarter and a fourth. Top this, top that. He tops most GMs in an organization that once had Hawk as GM and a bunch of other terrible, terrible GMs and owners and players and history. So he's top. Yeah.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[Jeremy]

This discussion about Kenny should be about how much success he will having going forward. The only way his past success is relevant is to the extent that it's predictive and if people are suggesting Kenny's track record indicates he has a championship in him every 7 or 10 years, I'd have to disagree. If you take GM A who has a .500 winning percentage, a world series, and two playoff births in the past decade and GM B who has a .600 winning percentage, eight playoff births, and no championships over the same time period, I'd argue that GM B will win more championships than GM A in the next decade. Personally, I just don't believe that Kenny is an exceptional GM so I don't think the fact that he's "shown he can win a world series" will get him that far in the future.

 

Actually the Indians were sold then, and I'm pretty sure that's why Hart bailed. The new owner paid a premium. He bought high. In fact, he probably couldn't have bought higher. I think he then started having other financial issues.

 

Right. IIRC the team decided to slash payroll around the time Shapiro took over. It's pretty shocking to me as though people are talking as though Shapiro inherited a star studded team and a huge payroll and decided to tear it to pieces just for fun our out of stupidity.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

That's one of the worst arguments I've ever heard, bro. Seven years out of seven those GMs are better GMs than KW.

I am stunned by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

 

 

 

 

Believe what you want, "bro". You can disagree with my argument, but what it all means is that you have to judge on the long view in this game. And in the long view, KW has been more successful than most GM's, based on the reasons I gave. Half those names on your list cannot claim the same.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

I am stunned by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

 

Believe what you want, "bro". You can disagree with my argument, but what it all means is that you have to judge on the long view in this game. And in the long view, KW has been more successful than most GM's, based on the reasons I gave. Half those names on your list cannot claim the same.

 

Absolutely not. Quite a few of those guys have a ring, just like KW, with far more sustained success and many less embarrassments than KW. And you're criticizing my last reply for lack of profundity? From the guy who is almost baselessly claiming that KW has been all that hot? Especially when you analyze the teams and the division and all sorts of other factors, he hasn't been at all. I've had plenty of substance in my posts on the subject, thanks, so let's not pretend that I'm just throwing out a "No" and you're saying,

 

"KW good"

and I say "No"

and you say "KW is good, sorry"

and I say, "No."

 

I've given my reasons why he's not even top twelve, and probably less. I've given my reasons why your reason is faulty -- "competitive in the end!" of the season isn't so impressive when his teams are competing with the Comedy Central that he couldn't even win until 2005. When you go through that list and point out good, substantial reasons why those GMs aren't as "good" as KW, let me know and we'll have a discussion that'll be more "profound," whatever that means to you bro.

[fathom]

Ned Yost (makes me appreciate how well we played after our great start in 2005)

[29andPoplar]

But I put that more on the shoulders of the players and coaches. Just my perspective on the way the game works.

 

And you'd be 100% right. If anyone doesn't believe it, have a casual chat with people who make their livelihood in the game.

 

This site gives WAY too much credit and blame to GM's and managers and coaches, and not enough of both to the players.

 

To sum it up, players make GM's really smart or really dumb, not all the time, but lots of times.

[Dick Allen]

Right, it's KW's responsibility for us winning but Beane and Shapiro for them losing.

 

Gillick has a longer track record of success than KW and is a better GM. I'm not going to spend time arguing over whether or not Minaya is better than KW. Most people would tell you so. Ask around somewhere else and see what you get.

That's a great point. 90 victory seasons are something for KW to hang his hat on, its the players fault if they don't do more. If Beane or Ryan put together a playoff team and they lose in the first or second round, they don't know how to build championship teams, its not the players fault they don't win, its the flawed roster. KW has had 1 team out of 7 that's played up to or beyond expectations. That's 14.3%. You can blame the players, but they have been different every year. You can blame the manager. He's had a couple of those. Or maybe just maybe its the guy responsible for putting together the roster. The problem with 2007 is KW is hard headed and didn't want to admit he was wrong about 2006. He wanted to bring back the same guys because he said they won 90 games and couldn't have played worse. Wrong again. Its that same stubborness why we have to watch Gavin Floyd surrender gopher ball after gopher ball. It wasn't White Sox scouts who suggested KW get Floyd. It was KW himself. Ozzie doesn't want him on the roster. He has said a few times he has to see what Kenny wants to do. Ozzie has less say in Gavin Floyd than any other player he's ever managed. One of KW's apologists on this board actually ripped into your boy JS in one thread about a month ago saying winning the division gets old.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Dick Allen

[29andPoplar]

Once you get into the playoffs, it pretty much a crapshoot.

That is generally true. The teams that win though usually have damn good starting pitching, starting pitching that has something left in the tank due to how they're handled during the regular season.

 

Of course, sweeping your first round opponent while other series go the limit helps your starting pitching considerably. It all comes down to taking care of business when you've got the opportunity, and that means hitting on all cylinders at the right time. Which is a credit to everyone involved - the players, the manager for ensuring they've got momentum and are fresh, and the GM for ensuring you've got the right kind of players who can handle the grind and the inevitable ups and downs.

[29andPoplar]

The teams were at different points when each took over. Shapiro had to rebuild and trade veterans for young players. KW has had the luxury and resources to go for it. The White Sox have had about $120 million more to play with the last 4 seasons. Some of it because KW won, but still the comparision is really not fair.

 

The White Sox had to rebuild practically the entire starting staff after all the arms fell off after 2000.

 

KW has had the luxury and resources to go for it? What about all the White Sox fans complaining ad nauseum about payroll restrictions all those years? It's not as if the resources were unlimited, not by a long shot.

[Dick Allen]

The White Sox had to rebuild practically the entire starting staff after all the arms fell off after 2000.

 

KW has had the luxury and resources to go for it? What about all the White Sox fans complaining ad nauseum about payroll restrictions all those years? It's not as if the resources were unlimited, not by a long shot.

Buerhle and Garland have been constants. That's 40% of your rotation 7 years later is pretty good. The White Sox have spent about $176 million more on players than Cleveland the past 5 seasons. I don't know if Shapiro is all that great, but the deal for Colon was good. Picking up Hafner for a bad pitcher was good. Getting Co Co Crisp for an old Chuck Finley was good. He didn't have the built in offense that KW to start, and KW's teams were mediocre in a horrible division. Cleveland was rebuilding, Detroit was losing 100 + games, KC was KC.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Dick Allen

[29andPoplar]

Buerhle and Garland have been constants. That's 40% of your rotation 7 years later is pretty good. The White Sox have spent about $176 million more on players than Cleveland the past 5 seasons.

 

Garland wasn't much those first few years, but who gets the credit for sticking with him and sticking with him and sticking with him some more, and believing in his talent? Would that be Jerry Manuel, or Williams, or who?

 

As for the money, as I understand it, the Tribe and the White Sox operate on basically the same business model. They have a budget and they try very hard to not go into the red. That means the GM and his staff have to be creative and spend the money wisely so the team is competitive, which generally leads to higher attendance and bigger budgets. I know that's how it works with the White Sox, I suspect it does in Cleveland too. As I pointed out, the Indians were under .500 four of the six years. The Sox haven't been under .500 until this year.

 

There are all kinds of ways to spin this. The reality is, a broader long term perspective is necessary. Are the teams generally in the hunt, are they competitive? I realize that doesn't play in the "I want it now" world but unfortunately baseball seems to be a world unto itself, with cyclical natures that aren't always predictable.

 

I will contend these questions of "who should be fired first" are fairly addressed about a year from now. This staff has earned the opportunity to see if they can turn this around.

[29andPoplar]

I don't know if Shapiro is all that great, but the deal for Colon was good. Picking up Hafner for a bad pitcher was good. Getting Co Co Crisp for an old Chuck Finley was good. He didn't have the built in offense that KW to start, and KW's teams were mediocre in a horrible division. Cleveland was rebuilding, Detroit was losing 100 + games, KC was KC.

 

I don't know if Shapiro is all that great either, but I will say the deal the White Sox made for Contreras for Loaiza was good, the trade for Garcia was good even though I recall being at the ballpark after that game and all the teenagers were aghast the great Jeremy Reed was traded. That took guts. Jenks was good scouting, other teams could have easily claimed him and are kicking themselves they didn't.

 

Every GM makes good moves, and every GM makes moves that flame out. The key is, how do they rebound from moves that don't work out. Which is why I say all this talk of gassing people doesn't make sense. Let's see how they rebound from this.

[Gregory Pratt]

That's a great point. 90 victory seasons are something for KW to hang his hat on, its the players fault if they don't do more. If Beane or Ryan put together a playoff team and they lose in the first or second round, they don't know how to build championship teams, its not the players fault they don't win, its the flawed roster. KW has had 1 team out of 7 that's played up to or beyond expectations. That's 14.3%. You can blame the players, but they have been different every year. You can blame the manager. He's had a couple of those. Or maybe just maybe its the guy responsible for putting together the roster. The problem with 2007 is KW is hard headed and didn't want to admit he was wrong about 2006. He wanted to bring back the same guys because he said they won 90 games and couldn't have played worse. Wrong again. Its that same stubborness why we have to watch Gavin Floyd surrender gopher ball after gopher ball. It wasn't White Sox scouts who suggested KW get Floyd. It was KW himself. Ozzie doesn't want him on the roster. He has said a few times he has to see what Kenny wants to do. Ozzie has less say in Gavin Floyd than any other player he's ever managed. One of KW's apologists on this board actually ripped into your boy JS in one thread about a month ago saying winning the division gets old.

 

Well, partner. How many World Series rings have you got?!

 

You know, players have to perform, to be sure, but it is up to the GM to assemble the roster, decide who will gel, make decisions about their future, project what they'll do over the next few years with scouts they trust, decide what to do with them, decide when to cut loose and when to hold on, when to hold or bluff, who to give up and who not to give up, who's a good investment and who isn't, etc. etc. etc. Let's not overstate a GM's importance but let's not understate it. The General Manager is of highest importance because he decides when it's time for a change or partial changes or who will play when. He hires directors of personnel, he hires the scouts (at least in Atlanta he does, but I THINK that's the GMs job everywhere), he does all these things and obviously the players have to perform, but you've got to know what to expect and what they project by your analysis. Do we do that? Not well, so far as I can tell. We don't sell high. There's a lot to criticize and discuss, to be sure, but I don't think, and you agree, that KW is good or significantly good at any of these things.

 

As always, I appreciate your insight, and I'm done with this thread. Finished my biology and now I've got to wrap up my political writing and go to bed. Good night!

[Jeremy]

Garland wasn't much those first few years, but who gets the credit for sticking with him and sticking with him and sticking with him some more, and believing in his talent? Would that be Jerry Manuel, or Williams, or who?

 

If Kenny had his way we would've traded Big Jon for Erstand and perhaps wouldn't have won the World Series so I certainly don't think he gets much credit.

 

As for the money, as I understand it, the Tribe and the White Sox operate on basically the same business model. They have a budget and they try very hard to not go into the red. That means the GM and his staff have to be creative and spend the money wisely so the team is competitive, which generally leads to higher attendance and bigger budgets. I know that's how it works with the White Sox, I suspect it does in Cleveland too. As I pointed out, the Indians were under .500 four of the six years. The Sox haven't been under .500 until this year.

 

I think every team in baseball establishes a budget for player personnel but I don't see how you can say that a GM who can't exceed a $70 million payroll and a GM who can't exceed a $40 million payroll can just as easily put a winner on the field.

 

I don't know if Shapiro is all that great either, but I will say the deal the White Sox made for Contreras for Loaiza was good, the trade for Garcia was good even though I recall being at the ballpark after that game and all the teenagers were aghast the great Jeremy Reed was traded. That took guts. Jenks was good scouting, other teams could have easily claimed him and are kicking themselves they didn't.

 

Every GM makes good moves, and every GM makes moves that flame out. The key is, how do they rebound from moves that don't work out. Which is why I say all this talk of gassing people doesn't make sense. Let's see how they rebound from this.

 

I guess the Contreras move would look mighty good for Kenny if he hadn't resigned him to that ridiculous extension. At the time he made the move, I thought it looked crazy. The market was severely depressed and instead of getting out from under Loaiza's contract and using the $ freed up to sign a free agent, Kenny took on a huge contract that was on the verge of becoming unmovable. I'll give Kenny the benefit of the doubt that he had good insight to realize that Contreras could be fixed and realized the market would bounce back.

 

The Garcia deal certainly worked out well also but I think Kenny was a little bit lucky that Freddy had one of his best seasons in '05 and that Reed flamed out so badly. Maybe Kenny had great scouting insight on Reed or wisely raised an eye brow given how much of his minor league success was driven by batting average. It's hard to say exactly what the thought process was but it's hard for me to give Kenny tons of credit when his public rationale for trading elite prospects is generally "1917" and his comments about Young basically indicated that he realized the odds were that some of them would turn into stars. I guess this is where everyone jumps on me screaming about how that move won us a World Series but to me the thought process is more important than the results. Maybe we wouldn't have won a World Series without Geoff Blum, but I don't think that makes it one of the 10 most brilliant trades of all time. Obviously there are things that are out of your control - players slack off, players get injured, players become free agents, players age - but part of me thinks the fact that two years after we won we're practically in the cellar suggests that Kenny's brilliance wasn't responsible for assembling an awesome collection of talent and/or he's performed terribly ever since we won (as pleased as I am to have won the Series, I lean more towards the former).

 

Also, I think it's important to emphasize that Kenny didn't just start making poor moves or having a lack of success in 2007. We've had several mediocre seasons under his tenure and some of the groundwork for this season's failure (Contreras' extension, neglect of the farm system, depletion of the farm system) occurred prior to this past off-season. I understand that if you think Kenny did a great job from 2001-2006 - and Reinsdorf probably does - then it would be ridiculous to can him for one bad season. Personally, I've just had complaints pretty much since day one and don't see too many opportunities to salvage things in the near future.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Jeremy

[NorthSideSox72]

Just another point to add to the discussion. As people have noted, the Sox are operated as a profitable business. As such, there are budget constraints, and KW (just like most GM's) has to work within them. So why are people ignoring salaries? Some seem to have forgotten... the Sox were NOT a high payroll team until 2006.

 

So, how about we look at GM's measured in terms of efficiency? How effective they are with the salary cap they are given? Let's look at the Sox under KW. Here are the Sox final standings records in W-L (the single most accurate measure of a team's talent level), along with the team's payroll, and their (ranks) in all of baseball...

 

2001 Season

-----Final Record: 83-79 (14)

-----Payroll: $62.3M (16)

 

2002 Season

-----Final Record: 81-81 (14)

-----Payroll: $57.0M (18)

 

2003 Season

-----Final Record: 86-76 (11)

-----Payroll: $51.0M (22)

 

2004 Season

-----Final Record: 83-79 (15)

-----Payroll: $65.2M (15)

 

2005 Season

-----Final Record: 99-63 (2)

-----Payroll: $75.1M (13)

 

2006 Season

-----Final Record: 90-72 (6)

-----Payroll: $108.6M (5)

 

Anyone notice a pattern or two? Every single year 2001-2005, the Sox placed AT OR ABOVE what their payroll should have dictated. And in 2006, they placed one slot behind it. So until this year, which has certainly been a disaster, KW has put together a consistent history of doing better with the resources he was given than the majority of GM's in baseball. The numbers prove that.

 

So, again, we see that KW has done better than most GM's at putting teams on the field that are as competitive as possible within budgetary constraints. You can use W-L as above, or staying competitive late, or World Series championships. Pick your measure. By ANY of those measures, he has done better than the majority of current or contemporary GM's in the game.

 

[DBAHO]

I voted Walker, although I have to say I was shocked that no-one has voted for Cooper yet, considering the state of our bullpen, and some of our rotation.

 

Just for me, it's inexcuseable that a player such as Juan Uribe who has a lot of talent has regressed so much. How can he go from being such a great #2 hitter, so someone who can't get an OP over .300 for 2 seasons in a row? Now he may not listen, and he may have a different swing with each AB, but for mine, Walker needed to find another way to get through to Juan, use that timing mechanism etc.

 

Players such as Dye have also regressed from last season. In a park that's as hitting friendly as the Cell, that doesn't bode well for Walker. Very lucky to still have a job.

[hitlesswonder]

 

When did 1 playoff appearance in 7 years and a team in year #7 that is in last place at the end of August with a bad farm system and old and very expensive MLB squad make you one of the more successful GM's in the game?

 

Seriously -- Williams is without a doubt one of the least successful GMs in major league baseball. In the course of 7 years he's built the worst farm system in baseball and has demonstrated this season that his plan to rectify that is to find scapegoats. Impressive stuff. Anyone that thinks Williams has proven he's even more than a mediocre GM is delusional.

Edited August 29, 2007 by hitlesswonder

[DBAHO]

I suppose the argument is there, would you rather a Terry Ryan who's much better at building a system but hasn't had major success, or a Kenny Williams who's more aggressive and has won a world series, but can get into trouble sometimes with his moves that he's made?

 

Or a Mark Shapiro as well, who's starting to have some success with the Indians now.

[Dick Allen]

Just another point to add to the discussion. As people have noted, the Sox are operated as a profitable business. As such, there are budget constraints, and KW (just like most GM's) has to work within them. So why are people ignoring salaries? Some seem to have forgotten... the Sox were NOT a high payroll team until 2006.

 

So, how about we look at GM's measured in terms of efficiency? How effective they are with the salary cap they are given? Let's look at the Sox under KW. Here are the Sox final standings records in W-L (the single most accurate measure of a team's talent level), along with the team's payroll, and their (ranks) in all of baseball...

 

2001 Season

-----Final Record: 83-79 (14)

-----Payroll: $62.3M (16)

 

2002 Season

-----Final Record: 81-81 (14)

-----Payroll: $57.0M (18)

 

2003 Season

-----Final Record: 86-76 (11)

-----Payroll: $51.0M (22)

 

2004 Season

-----Final Record: 83-79 (15)

-----Payroll: $65.2M (15)

 

2005 Season

-----Final Record: 99-63 (2)

-----Payroll: $75.1M (13)

 

2006 Season

-----Final Record: 90-72 (6)

-----Payroll: $108.6M (5)

 

Anyone notice a pattern or two? Every single year 2001-2005, the Sox placed AT OR ABOVE what their payroll should have dictated. And in 2006, they placed one slot behind it. So until this year, which has certainly been a disaster, KW has put together a consistent history of doing better with the resources he was given than the majority of GM's in baseball. The numbers prove that.

 

So, again, we see that KW has done better than most GM's at putting teams on the field that are as competitive as possible within budgetary constraints. You can use W-L as above, or staying competitive late, or World Series championships. Pick your measure. By ANY of those measures, he has done better than the majority of current or contemporary GM's in the game.

Those numbers are misleading. Except for 2005 which nobody can take away from him, he's about right there despite having 38 games a year against DET and KC from 2001-2004, arguably the worst teams in the majors. How does KW's rank in payroll in the AL central compare to the result? I'm sure it will be a little different.

[Dick Allen]

Seriously -- Williams is without a doubt one of the least successful GMs in major league baseball. In the course of 7 years he's built the worst farm system in baseball and has demonstrated this season that his plan to rectify that is to find scapegoats. Impressive stuff. Anyone that thinks Williams has proven he's even a mediocre GM is delusional.

While I'm no fan, winning a championship does qualify him for a lifetime of at least mediocre.