Who would you like to see fired the most?

[Jeremy]

The baseball world is full of woulda, coulda, shoulda.

 

I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way, but you're getting at my main point here which is that results should be the overriding or perhaps even the main consideration when evaluating GMs. If you do that you're relying on hindsight bias way too much. The majority of my opinion on Kenny and his moves is based on my reaction to the deal at the time it happened. I certainly allow for hindsight to provide clues that my judgment was poor but I rarely will do a complete 180 on my opinion after the fact. For instance, I think Kenny benefited from some good luck that made the Garcia deal look better than it was and was victimized by some poor luck when this year's bullpen performed worse than it actually was.

 

When I posted my comment about Garland, I just knew someone would respond with the "well he almost traded him to Anahiem" comment. This is reality, not what ifs. I can respond to your comment by saying "what if" that trade went thru and Williams turned around and used those assets to get something else, something better.

 

Generally discussion of deals that don't go through is very speculative but this is a unique situation where we know for certain that if Kenny could've traded Garland for Erstad he would've done it. I think that means we can evaluate that transaction. I thought at the time that moving Garland when his value was near an all time low was unwise and that Erstad brought little to the table. I continue to believe that so I think Kenny exercised poor judgment and that we certainly shouldn't be slapping him on the back for keeping Garland around when he was more than willing to deal him.

 

See, the "he almost traded Garland" argument doesn't wash because no one knows what would've happened afterwards.

 

To further the "what if" game on the other side of the coin, are you aware of the trade offers Williams and Hahn turned down? I'm sure there have been many, many of which would've (there's that word again) been bad for the franchise. None of us know what they've turned down, we just read rumors which may or may not be truthful. To pinch an old phrase Sometimes the best deals are the ones you don't make.

 

The result of that logic is basically that we can't critically discuss anything the organization does. You could say for any deal Kenny has made that for all we know he had a plan to spin the guy to someone else but things fell through. We have a number of indications that Kenny was very high on Erstad, including the fact that he signed him years later, so there's no strong reason to believe he had any intention of moving him.

 

Your point that there are a lot of unknowns is well taken - I have no problem admitting these are imperfect discussions - but it's a message board, this is pretty much the point.

 

Again, this entire argument can be spun 100 times over, depending on what side of the fence you're on. Many of you have the impression Williams is arrogant, have you met him personally, have you interacted with him, or is this merely an impression you've picked up by reading message boards and newspapers. For what it's worth I have met him, probably a dozen times, and have had the pleasure of interacting with him several times. He is engaging, quick to give credit to others, is often self depreciating, with an obvious competitive streak. And by all accounts has a very strong work ethic. I don't see arrogant at all, I see confidence and a competitive streak which is what I want for my team's GM. Rick Hahn is the same way. See, the whole perception thing can be spun 100 ways too.

 

I'm really not too concerned with Kenny's personality, though I suppose it does affect his work some. Has he infuriated me with some of his comments (namely one's about Frank)? Sure, because he's one of the faces of this franchise and I don't want my team to look bad. I don't think I've let that bleed into my opinion of his skills too much though. When something like "arrogance" affects my opinion of him it's when I see what I perceive as trends in his moves. For instance, I believe that a number of his moves reflect extreme confidence in the organization's scouting opinions of players. Label that arrogance, overconfidence, or don't label it at all but it's something that disturbs me.

 

Lastly ... "the thought process is worth more than the results" ???? No thanks, I'll take results. We're not getting the results this year, in past years the team has been competitive for the most part. How about this, those who want them fired, who do you hire in their place and why? Please give specifics. Not just "let's hire Steve Stone, ummm, he's a smart guy and knows the game".

 

Let's Kenny signs ARod to a ten year deal at one million a year and then ARod blows out his knees skiing before he ever plays a game for the Sox. You would say that's a bad move and a waste of $10 million by Kenny? Say Kenny trades Buehrle for Dewon Brazleton tomorrow and then Buehrle never posts another ERA under 5 while Brazelton turns into a superstar. You'd say that Kenny is a genius because he knew that was going to happen? Luck plays a role in baseball and not everything can be predicted. If you have any doubt about that, look at some of Baseball America's old top 100 prospect lists or think about stars like Fernando Tatis who suddenly became worthless one day. If you rely solely on results, you'll get very skewed evaluations of decision making.

[29andPoplar]

But I want the guy who shoots for everything, who goes for the gold. Because guys like Beane, they are great, they are good, but they are happy with second place, with putting on a good show. And thats not me, second place is the first loser, and honestly there is no difference between 2nd and last, except a whole bunch of excuses.

 

I know that the Sox organization feels the same way as me, because they are filled with people who have suffered like me.

 

I dont have any second favorite teams like the Braves or A's who I can conveniently follow when the Sox arent doing well. For me its the Sox or nothing, and right now its a bad year. But ya know what, I dont mind, I dont mind watching young guys, I dont mind some times having to take the lumps.

 

Because I have confidence that a guy like KW is suffering right now. Hes working to win next year, my feeling is probably no one is more upset/pissed about this year than KW himself, and thats the type of GM I want.

 

I was trying to decide which part of your excellent post to quote and decided on this part. While I'm not certain Beane is happy with 2nd place, I completely agree with the two main points you bring out. I too want a guy who shoots for everything and goes for the gold. And I too have complete confidence that Williams, Hahn, Guillen, Reinsdorf and everyone else with input are suffering, and suffering more than any of us.

 

I may not agree with their personnel moves, in fact it's often I don't. But I do not doubt they are pouring all the available resources into making the team a winner, and are willing and able to critique themselves and make necessary changes.

[WCSox]

I was trying to decide which part of your excellent post to quote and decided on this part. While I'm not certain Beane is happy with 2nd place, I completely agree with the two main points you bring out. I too want a guy who shoots for everything and goes for the gold.

 

I liked Kenny's aggressiveness right off the bat (Wells/Sirotka). I don't agree with all of his moves, either, but it was a welcome departure from the Ron Schueler our-prospects-will-pan-out-eventually philosophy.

 

[29andPoplar]

I certainly wouldn't phrase it that way, but you're getting at my main point here which is that results should be the overriding or perhaps even the main consideration when evaluating GMs. If you do that you're relying on hindsight bias way too much. The majority of my opinion on Kenny and his moves is based on my reaction to the deal at the time it happened. I certainly allow for hindsight to provide clues that my judgment was poor but I rarely will do a complete 180 on my opinion after the fact. For instance, I think Kenny benefited from some good luck that made the Garcia deal look better than it was and was victimized by some poor luck when this year's bullpen performed worse than it actually was.

Generally discussion of deals that don't go through is very speculative but this is a unique situation where we know for certain that if Kenny could've traded Garland for Erstad he would've done it. I think that means we can evaluate that transaction. I thought at the time that moving Garland when his value was near an all time low was unwise and that Erstad brought little to the table. I continue to believe that so I think Kenny exercised poor judgment and that we certainly shouldn't be slapping him on the back for keeping Garland around when he was more than willing to deal him.

The result of that logic is basically that we can't critically discuss anything the organization does. You could say for any deal Kenny has made that for all we know he had a plan to spin the guy to someone else but things fell through. We have a number of indications that Kenny was very high on Erstad, including the fact that he signed him years later, so there's no strong reason to believe he had any intention of moving him.

 

Your point that there are a lot of unknowns is well taken - I have no problem admitting these are imperfect discussions - but it's a message board, this is pretty much the point.

I'm really not too concerned with Kenny's personality, though I suppose it does affect his work some. Has he infuriated me with some of his comments (namely one's about Frank)? Sure, because he's one of the faces of this franchise and I don't want my team to look bad. I don't think I've let that bleed into my opinion of his skills too much though. When something like "arrogance" affects my opinion of him it's when I see what I perceive as trends in his moves. For instance, I believe that a number of his moves reflect extreme confidence in the organization's scouting opinions of players. Label that arrogance, overconfidence, or don't label it at all but it's something that disturbs me.

Let's Kenny signs ARod to a ten year deal at one million a year and then ARod blows out his knees skiing before he ever plays a game for the Sox. You would say that's a bad move and a waste of $10 million by Kenny? Say Kenny trades Buehrle for Dewon Brazleton tomorrow and then Buehrle never posts another ERA under 5 while Brazelton turns into a superstar. You'd say that Kenny is a genius because he knew that was going to happen? Luck plays a role in baseball and not everything can be predicted. If you have any doubt about that, look at some of Baseball America's old top 100 prospect lists or think about stars like Fernando Tatis who suddenly became worthless one day. If you rely solely on results, you'll get very skewed evaluations of decision making.

 

Well I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here but it sounds like you evaluate things at the time they happen and factor in the thought process behind the move, and hence make your judgements about the GM. Or in the case of Erstad/Garland, evaluate things when they don't happen but still factor in the thought process and make judgements about the GM.

 

I don't do it that way, and it comes from watching baseball and specifically the White Sox organization for decades. I look at just about everything bigger picture, choosing not to overreact on a single personnel move one way or the other. Constructing/building/molding a team is an ongoing process and many many times one move predicates another. Baseball history shows that clearly. I look at the trends of the White Sox and their action plan to be better. I know from watching baseball for a long long time there will be inevitable ups and downs and I don't scream for people to get fired or start polls. Yes I understand this is a message board and everything and anything can be discussed. I am trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to encourage people to look at things in a broader perspective, because I know every successful baseball organization does just that.

 

Example ... look at that thread about Buehrle re-signing. It was 110 or so pages. Many here were absolutely crucifying Williams and I mean hanging his rear end on the wall. One bleeding heart who likes to bump threads and say "I told you so" was bemoaning his 4 yr. old wouldn't have anyone to root for and it was a tragedy that Buehrle would win his next 150 games in another uniform. My response in that whole thread was "let's wait it out, let's wait and see what happens". I am advocating the same now.

 

On your ARod example and I know it's just an example. No, you are incorrect, I would not see that as a bad move. First of all, ARod is a premier player and if you can get him you do it. If he blows out his knees and never plays a game with the White Sox, no I'm not jumping off a cliff saying the White Sox are hamstrung because I know insurance will cover most of the payroll obligation. Again, it's looking big picture and I am fortunate to understand a bit how the business side of things works.

 

I will continue to rely heavily on results because I'm comfortable with the thought process of "going for it" and constantly trying to make the team better, both in what we fans hear about and what goes on behind the scenes. Some here do not like the thought process, that is completely ok by me, there will always be different opinions.

Edited August 29, 2007 by 29andPoplar

[hammerhead johnson]

So, Minaya isn't a better GM than Kenny, but he's on your list of "better GMs than Kenny." Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Where did Greg contradict himself? He merely stated that he wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Why are you putting words into his mouth?

 

I'm itching to call you a meathead, as always, but I'll refrain from the personal attacks.

[29andPoplar]

I liked Kenny's aggressiveness right off the bat (Wells/Sirotka). I don't agree with all of his moves, either, but it was a welcome departure from the Ron Schueler our-prospects-will-pan-out-eventually philosophy.

 

Yes, the aggressiveness is a big plus to me too. As a side note, aggressiveness tends to play well in Chicago.

 

Again, big picture stuff, if your GM is going to be aggressive you had best have very good pro scouting. Not certain the White Sox have always had great pro scouting. They need to do better with this because the White Sox are an organization that uses a specific methodology for sourcing talent vs. going out and buying big ticket FA's. That methodology is what we saw in the Danny Richar trade. They identify guys who are blocked or undervalued on other teams systems and try to plug them in. They did that with Willie Harris to mixed results although it was clear WH had some real talent.

 

This last winter they moved Dave Wilder over to pro scouting, which is one of Wilder's strengths. Wilder was in on the Richar trade so it will be interesting to see how Richar works out.

[RockRaines]

Jesus. When did reading a message board become so time consuming. There are 3 novels in this thread alone.

[WCSox]

Yes, the aggressiveness is a big plus to me too. As a side note, aggressiveness tends to play well in Chicago.

 

Again, big picture stuff, if your GM is going to be aggressive you had best have very good pro scouting. Not certain the White Sox have always had great pro scouting. They need to do better with this because the White Sox are an organization that uses a specific methodology for sourcing talent vs. going out and buying big ticket FA's. That methodology is what we saw in the Danny Richar trade. They identify guys who are blocked or undervalued on other teams systems and try to plug them in. They did that with Willie Harris to mixed results although it was clear WH had some real talent.

 

This last winter they moved Dave Wilder over to pro scouting, which is one of Wilder's strengths. Wilder was in on the Richar trade so it will be interesting to see how Richar works out.

 

Glad to hear that Wilder's strength is scouting, because it doesn't appear to be Kenny's. But I'm optimistic that combining Wilder's strength with Kenny's strength (aggressiveness, trade/contract negotiations) might work out.

 

I don't know if the KW regime will be successful down the road but, unlike some other people here, I'm willing to give them a few more years to get this team back on track. It's not like they haven't gotten it done before.

Edited August 29, 2007 by WCSox

[Dogfood22]

Greg Walker!

 

If you are going to hold the players accountable for their poor performances, fine. Good. But then you also have to hold the hitting coach responsible for players' poor performances, because essentially that is Walker's f***ing job. Maybe Walk is doing everything right, maybe not, but if 70-80% of your offense is hangin' out on the bench smokin' that crack then you need to dump the guy standing there watching them pass the pipe around.

[Gregory Pratt]

Billy Beane didn't write Moneyball but let's not let reality get in the way of things.

[Jeremy]

once again, whats with all this "measured by finish place" etc etc. He has a ring. Thats the ultimate goal in professional sports. I would gladly trade in 10 division titles for one World Series ring.

 

I've address this already: you want to hire a GM based on what he'll do going forward, not what he's accomplished in the past. It's great that Kenny's moves led to the '05 Championship but it's not as though the rings will be revoked and given to another team if we fire him. If you want to make the argument that a GM that wins a World Series is a very good GM 99 out of 100 times and has a high likelihood of winning future wrings if the future if given the opportunity, you're welcome to but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

 

Well I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here but it sounds like you evaluate things at the time they happen and factor in the thought process behind the move, and hence make your judgements about the GM. Or in the case of Erstad/Garland, evaluate things when they don't happen but still factor in the thought process and make judgements about the GM.

 

That's reasonably accurate.

 

I don't do it that way, and it comes from watching baseball and specifically the White Sox organization for decades. I look at just about everything bigger picture, choosing not to overreact on a single personnel move one way or the other. Constructing/building/molding a team is an ongoing process and many many times one move predicates another. Baseball history shows that clearly. I look at the trends of the White Sox and their action plan to be better. I know from watching baseball for a long long time there will be inevitable ups and downs and I don't scream for people to get fired or start polls. Yes I understand this is a message board and everything and anything can be discussed. I am trying, perhaps unsuccessfully, to encourage people to look at things in a broader perspective, because I know every successful baseball organization does just that.

 

I believe that moves are interrelated but not often to a huge degree. For instance, I'd agree that if Kenny say, trades Garland in the off season he shouldn't be crucified because people suddenly think our pitching is thin since he might have plans to sign a free agent pitcher or trade for another pitcher. However, if he gets bad value for Garland...I think that's unrelated of other moves he makes during the off season, unless some other team overvalues what he got in return for Garland and plans to flip those players to a third team.

 

Example ... look at that thread about Buehrle re-signing. It was 110 or so pages. Many here were absolutely crucifying Williams and I mean hanging his rear end on the wall. One bleeding heart who likes to bump threads and say "I told you so" was bemoaning his 4 yr. old wouldn't have anyone to root for and it was a tragedy that Buehrle would win his next 150 games in another uniform. My response in that whole thread was "let's wait it out, let's wait and see what happens". I am advocating the same now.

 

I certainly agree that you want to tread carefully when there are obvious unknowns in play. No point in bemoaning Kenny for not resigning Buehrle when there's still a chance he might be signed or slamming Kenny for not trading for a certain player when what we'd have had to give up is based on rumors. However, I'd distinguish those instances from something like the Garland-Erstad trade where it's uncontested that Kenny would've traded Garland for Erstad if he'd had his druthers.

 

On your ARod example and I know it's just an example. No, you are incorrect, I would not see that as a bad move. First of all, ARod is a premier player and if you can get him you do it. If he blows out his knees and never plays a game with the White Sox, no I'm not jumping off a cliff saying the White Sox are hamstrung because I know insurance will cover most of the payroll obligation. Again, it's looking big picture and I am fortunate to understand a bit how the business side of things works.

 

I will continue to rely heavily on results because I'm comfortable with the thought process of "going for it" and constantly trying to make the team better, both in what we fans hear about and what goes on behind the scenes. Some here do not like the thought process, that is completely ok by me, there will always be different opinions.

 

Ok. I just meant the A-Rod example as a means of demonstrating that you wouldn't rely 100% on results in evaluating moves. Perhaps we agree on that but disagree on exactly how much emphasis to give hindsight. I don't really understand your last paragraph. Teams are always trying to get better whether it's in the short term or the long term. "Going for it" usually involves sacrificing prospect and young talent to obtain more established veteran talent. I think this team has proven that you can't always go for it because not even the Yankees have a payroll large enough to succeed without injecting good young talent into the lineup from time to time.

Edited August 29, 2007 by Jeremy

[WCSox]

Where did Greg contradict himself? He merely stated that he wasn't trying to convince you of anything. Why are you putting words into his mouth?

 

You're right. He included that material to convince himself, rather than the people who read his post.

 

I'm itching to call you a meathead, as always, but I'll refrain from the personal attacks.

 

Are you Greg's lover or something?

 

[Soxbadger]

Billy Beane didn't write Moneyball but let's not let reality get in the way of things.

 

No s*** sherlock?

 

Billy Beane isnt an author and the book was written by Michael Lewis?

 

It's called being facetious.

 

But Ill gladly take the fact that you conceded my argument.

[29andPoplar]

"Going for it" usually involves sacrificing prospect and young talent to obtain more established veteran talent. I think this team has proven that you can't always go for it because not even the Yankees have a payroll large enough to succeed without injecting good young talent into the lineup from time to time.

 

No, I think you understood it well and I agree that "going for it" generally means trading prospects for vets. Again I like to back away and look at it thru a wider angle lens. Williams has a history of trading prospects to be sure but he also has a history of dumping off spare parts for prospects (Singleton for Willie Harris, Iguchi for this young pitcher Dubee from Philly, there have been others.). So he is trying to do two things at once, and I think that has bit him this year. He's trying to set the White Sox up for a sustained run and that's all well and good. But when you do that, you have to be very very accurate.

 

Yes there is no question every team needs to inject good young talent into the lineup. Now let's examine the thought process. One of the reasons why Williams has had to trade for prospects, even while "going for it" in years like 2004 and 2006 and last winter, is because the scouting people hadn't brought good talent into the organization. Or, the development people haven't developed them. Follow me here. If KW and Reinsdorf sit there and say "we're going for it" then their mindset shouldn't be on trading for prospects. Generally, not always, when any organization tries to do two things at once, something suffers. Well, the White Sox suffered big time in 2007 because he was trying to set the team up for the future with young unproven relievers like Masset, Sisco, Aardsma and then thrust them into roles they clearly weren't ready for.

 

So their thought process is, damn, I have to trade for prospects because my scouting people aren't finding me guys to plug in. Thought process leads to action, scouting director is fired. Clearly to me this says the thought process is correct. Determine problem, fix problem. My development people aren't turning out talent either, let's get a new development guy (which they did, Regier). My Latin American people aren't turning out as much talent as we need, let's hire a respected guy with lots of connections in the Dominican (Amaro Sr. and they beefed up the scouting too).

 

Now of course everyone is looking for bullpen help every winter. So maybe the only bullpen guys readily available at reasonable cost were these young guys. But it didn't work. That is not to say acquiring young bullpen guys will never work, but you can bet it's a strategy they are examining as they head into the offseason. Meaning, they are re-examining their thought process. They have said they need to figure out this bullpen.

 

So you can see why, for now, I am comfortable with their thought process. They've identified the problems and have taken steps to try and fix them. Now and this winter and next spring, they need to execute.

[29andPoplar]

Come on guys let's keep this on baseball, no one wants this to get personal.

[Gregory Pratt]

You're right. He included that material to convince himself, rather than the people who read his post.

Are you Greg's lover or something?

 

Didn't he tell you we're Toys R Us kids? Guess you don't read what other people post.

 

And no, I wasn't trying to convince myself of anything. I was simply listing GMs better than KW, and you said, "WHY IS HE BETTTER" and I said, "I'm going to decline to get into a debate with you about it" because whatever I say will come down to "The Ring" or "GMs don't cause teams to win!111" or whatever. Maybe a football analogy.

 

And Soxbadger, I didn't concede anything. I was just pointing out that your facetious point was silly and inaccurate, even.

[WCSox]

Come on guys let's keep this on baseball, no one wants this to get personal.

 

Funny how the personal attacks seem to originate from the same place...

 

[WCSox]

And no, I wasn't trying to convince myself of anything. I was simply listing GMs better than KW, and you said, "WHY IS HE BETTTER" and I said, "I'm going to decline to get into a debate with you about it" because...

 

When people post ideas on a message board, they're typically arguing points. Forgive me for confusing that with you thinking out loud.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

I said, "These are the guys who I think are better than KW." I didn't say, "I'm going to prove how and why each and every one of them are better than Kenny Williams just for WCSox and defend every single trade and move they've ever made, though I could by pointing out, 'At least they never called Gavin Floyd a top prospect' and 'They've never, ever traded for the wrong player. Literally!'"

 

[WCSox]

I said, "These are the guys who I think are better than KW." I didn't say, "I'm going to prove how and why each and every one of them are better than Kenny Williams just for WCSox...

 

Yes, and when one presents an idea on a message board, the idea is discussed and sometimes criticized. That's the entire freaking point.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

Yes, and when one presents an idea on a message board, the idea is discussed and sometimes criticized. That's the entire freaking point.

 

I'm not begrudging you the right to criticize my point. I'm just saying, I'm not going to debate it with you. I might bite on other GM arguments, but not that one because I don't feel I've got anything to prove in this discussion. I think I've made my points well, and DA has made them well, and I don't think I've got anything to prove on the subject. I might write a thorough article on it this weekend, though, so that I'll never have to post this again. Sort of a FAQ on KWM(ediocrity).

 

Have a nice night.

[WCSox]

I'm not begrudging you the right to criticize my point. I'm just saying, I'm not going to debate it with you.

 

Of course you won't, because there's no rational defense for your point. But that hasn't stopped you from going on and on and on about it for the past few pages.

 

[29andPoplar]

I think I've made my points well, and DA has made them well, and I don't think I've got anything to prove on the subject.

 

I agree completely, your points were made very well. I also think they were countered exceptionally well.

 

Bottom line I don't think anyone is changing anyone else's minds here. It is pretty apparant where everyone stands and hopefully a re-hash doesn't happen every day like some topics do.

[Gregory Pratt]

Of course you won't, because there's no rational defense for your point. But that hasn't stopped you from going on and on and on about it for the past few pages.

 

You've got some nerve considering your entire basis is "KW has a ring" and "KW doesn't play for the players -- but he's responsible for their one playoff success and Beane is responsible for their failure!" and all that. And there's plenty of defense for Minaya. He's rebuilt a Mets team that was bloated, old and mediocre when he took over, but like I said there's little point to defending anything from you.

[WCSox]

You've got some nerve considering your entire basis is "KW has a ring" and "KW doesn't play for the players -- but he's responsible for their one playoff success and Beane is responsible for their failure!" and all that.

 

Nice strawman argument, but that's not what I said.

 

And there's plenty of defense for Minaya. He's rebuilt a Mets team that was bloated, old and mediocre when he took over, but like I said there's little point to defending anything from you.

 

Yep, with a blank check to sign as many free agents as he needed and the young talent that was drafted/developed by his predecessors. Minaya hasn't done anything that the average person on Soxtalk couldn't have done.