I want Ozzie and KW gone.

[lostfan]

My question was sincere, I'm asking what you mean.

I meant that the Sox going on a 25-5 run and currently being in first place doesn't answer any deeper, macro-level questions about the overall direction of the organization, its philosophy, what we look like for 2011, what our chances are if we reach the playoffs, how we fare against our own divisional opponents, roster management, and so on. It just means this team was ridiculously hot for 6 weeks and went 25-5, so hot that they caught up and landed in first place. It doesn't tell you how good (obviously not THAT good because maintaining that level of play is impossible) or bad (obviously not bad because bad teams can't win 25 of 30 games) they are. It's not an answer to anything in itself.

Edited July 27, 2010 by lostfan

[southsider2k5]

I meant that the Sox going on a 25-5 run and currently being in first place doesn't answer any deeper, macro-level questions about the overall direction of the organization, its philosophy, what we look like for 2011, what our chances are if we reach the playoffs, how we fare against our own divisional opponents, roster management, and so on. It just means this team was ridiculously hot for 6 weeks and went 25-5, so hot that they caught up and landed in first place. It doesn't tell you how good (obviously not THAT good because maintaining that level of play is impossible) or bad (obviously not bad because bad teams can't win 25 of 30 games) they are. It's not an answer to anything in itself.

 

Even past that they are 30-11 in their last 41 games. That mark is the best in all of baseball. That is one quarter of a season. You don't win that many games, over that long of a period of time, if you are a bad team. It might not answer questions about 2011, but it tells you the 2010 team has something there.

[lostfan]

Even past that they are 30-11 in their last 41 games. That mark is the best in all of baseball. That is one quarter of a season. You don't win that many games, over that long of a period of time, if you are a bad team. It might not answer questions about 2011, but it tells you the 2010 team has something there.

Well yeah but what about the quarter of a season before that? Like night and day. You may as well be talking about 2 different teams.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I meant that the Sox going on a 25-5 run and currently being in first place doesn't answer any deeper, macro-level questions about the overall direction of the organization, its philosophy, what we look like for 2011, what our chances are if we reach the playoffs, how we fare against our own divisional opponents, roster management, and so on. It just means this team was ridiculously hot for 6 weeks and went 25-5, so hot that they caught up and landed in first place. It doesn't tell you how good (obviously not THAT good because maintaining that level of play is impossible) or bad (obviously not bad because bad teams can't win 25 of 30 games) they are. It's not an answer to anything in itself.

 

Excellent post, lostfan.

[jenksycat]

Well yeah but what about the quarter of a season before that? Like night and day. You may as well be talking about 2 different teams.

 

I think a good team can play like s*** for a while....but a bad team can't play like the best in baseball for that long.

[lostfan]

I'm not saying they aren't good... they ARE in first place after all. But a run like the one they just had isn't exactly common.

[southsider2k5]

I think a good team can play like s*** for a while....but a bad team can't play like the best in baseball for that long.

 

Exactly.

[southsider2k5]

I'm not saying they aren't good... they ARE in first place after all. But a run like the one they just had isn't exactly common.

 

Which is what separates them from bad teams.

[greg775]

The question is what is good enough for Sox fans?

Yes the payroll now is pretty decent, but if you have four or five stars, the payroll in a market like this means you will have a batch of inexpensive guys as well.

 

My guess is you want division titles four of every five years and deep playoff runs as well, with a WS title, what, every 10 years? Five years?

 

Is being the Minnesota Twins good enough for you? The old Atlanta Braves who won the division every year for 15 years or something?

 

What are your expectations?

My expectaitons for a still "small market" type team is about what is happening. Vie for a division title and hopefully have lightning strike in a bottle in the postseason as it did in 05.

 

So what are your expectations?? My guess is many think we should run away with the division every year and at least make the ALCS every year. Good luck with that. Other teams want it too.

[jenksycat]

The question is what is good enough for Sox fans?

Yes the payroll now is pretty decent, but if you have four or five stars, the payroll in a market like this means you will have a batch of inexpensive guys as well.

 

My guess is you want division titles four of every five years and deep playoff runs as well, with a WS title, what, every 10 years? Five years?

 

Is being the Minnesota Twins good enough for you? The old Atlanta Braves who won the division every year for 15 years or something?

 

What are your expectations?

My expectaitons for a still "small market" type team is about what is happening. Vie for a division title and hopefully have lightning strike in a bottle in the postseason as it did in 05.

 

So what are your expectations?? My guess is many think we should run away with the division every year and at least make the ALCS every year. Good luck with that. Other teams want it too.

 

The grass is always greener....

 

-We have a GM who isn't afraid to make moves and hasn't been burned more than losing a couple average players. Hasn't made any franchise crippling signings. And has completely fleeced multiple teams that have us some of the solid players we have today.

 

-We have a coach with a winning record who, when the team isn't playing like s*** (which he has no control of despite what everyone seems to think) wins games.

 

Great job twins, you compete for the division every year and get swept in the playoffs. Woopdeedoo.

[Jack Parkman]

This is my view about competing, you all may think I'm crazy, but here it goes. If you don't want to read the details skip to the last sentence. Since the sox are in the AL, every year as spring training opens the FO should ask themselves 3 questions:1. Do we believe, given the moves and talent of the teams in the AL central, that we will win the division by at least 5 games. 2. If a contributing player goes down to injury for the season, do we have enough talented players in our farm system to either A: replace that player adequately from within or B: acquire a replacement player close to the talent of the injured player. This should be determined by the amount of players opposing GMs covet(the key word) from the farm as well as the evaluation of our own scouts. 3. Does this team have at least a 40% chance of beating the Yankees in a 7 game series? If the answer to all 3 questions is yes, then we have done an excellent job. If the answer to all 3 questions is no, then there needs to be a 5 year plan to make the answer to all 3 questions yes. If the answer to question 1 is yes but the answer to questions 2 and 3 is no, then revert to the same plan as if the answer to all 3 questions is no. If the answer to questions 1&2 is yes, but question 3 is no, there needs to be a plan to make the answer to question 3 yes by next year's spring training.

In short, the ultimate question should be Do we have a 40% chance of beating the Yankees in a 7 game series. The next question should be Do we have a great farm system that allows us to acquire elite talent from a non contending team, while still supplementing the major league roster to keep us within our budget.

We are in the 4th biggest market in the AL behind NY Boston and LA. I consider this because I believe Chicago is 70% Cubs. As a top 4 market in the AL, ideally we should pretend we are in the AL East and and we should say "Can we compete with the Yankees over a 162 game schedule?" and strive for that goal.

Also, unless it is announced that we are in the 5 year plan and the answer to all questions is no, I expect at least an $80 million Payroll. If we are in the 1 year plan or better I expect at least a $100 million dollar payroll, ideally in the $110-125 million range.

This is how I'd run the team if I was JR

One more thing-Boras clients that make bank are among the top 5 players at their position in baseball, or top 15 Starters. I'd like to see the FO pay up for one of these guys for a change. I wouldn't go more than 5 years for him though. I wouldn't be opposed to trading for Fielder and giving him a 5/$100 million contract extension, but with the first 3 years being at $25 million and the 4th being $15 million and the 5th being $10 million

Edited July 27, 2010 by Elgin Slim

[greg775]

Two good posts following mine. Wow. Nice.

 

I do think answering my questions would be an interesting exercise and introspection of you, the fan, identifying exactly what you expect out of the franchise.

[The Ginger Kid]

I meant that the Sox going on a 25-5 run and currently being in first place doesn't answer any deeper, macro-level questions about the overall direction of the organization, its philosophy, what we look like for 2011, what our chances are if we reach the playoffs, how we fare against our own divisional opponents, roster management, and so on. It just means this team was ridiculously hot for 6 weeks and went 25-5, so hot that they caught up and landed in first place. It doesn't tell you how good (obviously not THAT good because maintaining that level of play is impossible) or bad (obviously not bad because bad teams can't win 25 of 30 games) they are. It's not an answer to anything in itself.

Thanks for the clarification.

[caulfield12]

This is my view about competing, you all may think I'm crazy, but here it goes. If you don't want to read the details skip to the last sentence. Since the sox are in the AL, every year as spring training opens the FO should ask themselves 3 questions:1. Do we believe, given the moves and talent of the teams in the AL central, that we will win the division by at least 5 games. 2. If a contributing player goes down to injury for the season, do we have enough talented players in our farm system to either A: replace that player adequately from within or B: acquire a replacement player close to the talent of the injured player. This should be determined by the amount of players opposing GMs covet(the key word) from the farm as well as the evaluation of our own scouts. 3. Does this team have at least a 40% chance of beating the Yankees in a 7 game series? If the answer to all 3 questions is yes, then we have done an excellent job. If the answer to all 3 questions is no, then there needs to be a 5 year plan to make the answer to all 3 questions yes. If the answer to question 1 is yes but the answer to questions 2 and 3 is no, then revert to the same plan as if the answer to all 3 questions is no. If the answer to questions 1&2 is yes, but question 3 is no, there needs to be a plan to make the answer to question 3 yes by next year's spring training.

In short, the ultimate question should be Do we have a 40% chance of beating the Yankees in a 7 game series. The next question should be Do we have a great farm system that allows us to acquire elite talent from a non contending team, while still supplementing the major league roster to keep us within our budget.

We are in the 4th biggest market in the AL behind NY Boston and LA. I consider this because I believe Chicago is 70% Cubs. As a top 4 market in the AL, ideally we should pretend we are in the AL East and and we should say "Can we compete with the Yankees over a 162 game schedule?" and strive for that goal.

Also, unless it is announced that we are in the 5 year plan and the answer to all questions is no, I expect at least an $80 million Payroll. If we are in the 1 year plan or better I expect at least a $100 million dollar payroll, ideally in the $110-125 million range.

This is how I'd run the team if I was JR

One more thing-Boras clients that make bank are among the top 5 players at their position in baseball, or top 15 Starters. I'd like to see the FO pay up for one of these guys for a change. I wouldn't go more than 5 years for him though. I wouldn't be opposed to trading for Fielder and giving him a 5/$100 million contract extension, but with the first 3 years being at $25 million and the 4th being $15 million and the 5th being $10 million

 

 

This is kind of like a software company in the US pretending they're going to operate in China.

 

It's not like the Yankees have guaranteed anything with their huge payrolls, either. They've won just as many as the Sox since 2000.

 

If we want to emulate anyone, it should be the Twins, Cardinals, Braves or Angels...because we simply don't have the ability to put all of our eggs in the basket of a FA superstar contract like the top 7-8 payroll teams do. Boras would never have his player sign that kind of "reverse" back-loaded contract...and KW/JR would certainly never approve, because their goal has always been to avoid the most expensive implications of any contract.

 

Yes, we should do a much better job in international talent procurement (especially Dominican and Venezuela), the draft and development...no doubt.

 

Still, what's the biggest lesson of 2005? Subtract Valentin and especially Ordonez and Carlos Lee from the payroll and that gives you the flexibility to bring in Pods, Iguchi, AJ, El Duque, Dye, Hermanson, Vizcaino, etc. Ironic, but we won that year with our lowest payroll, $65 million. Ever since then, we've spent MORE money but obviously not as efficiently or as wisely. It's also the main reason we're not making a Fielder, Oswalt or Haren acquisition, and those guys don't come close to $25 million per year, although Fielder certainly might in the future.

 

Now of course...your chances to compete are increased (although not exponentially) at each $10 million payroll tier you reach, but somebody quoted the fact that only about 37.5% of teams who have spent $100+ million ended up making the playoffs. There's simply no guarantee.

 

And you say the Cubs control 70% of the market, then proceed to say we're a Top 4 market...that really doesn't make sense. In some ways we are, but our attendance definitely has not been since 2006. Each market like SF/OAK, LA/Orange County, Balt/Washington, Chicago and NYC/Queens is unique. With the new Twins ballpark and the Tigers'/Illitch's continued willingness to outspend the Sox, we will undoubtedly continue to act like a "stealth" middle market team in a large market.

 

 

[RockRaines]

I expect Kenny and Ozzie to muddle their way to another division title this year, their 3rd in the last 6 years, and roll the dice in the playoffs,with Danks,Floyd and Buehrle on the mound. Probably win a series ,maybe a world series. Then next winter, Kenny and Ozzie will get hammered by loyal Sox fans again...because that is what loyal Sox fans do.

Probably followed by people hating that there arent impact players in the minors, while clamoring to make big trades at the deadline by dealing top prospects.

[Jack Parkman]

This is kind of like a software company in the US pretending they're going to operate in China.

 

It's not like the Yankees have guaranteed anything with their huge payrolls, either. They've won just as many as the Sox since 2000.

 

If we want to emulate anyone, it should be the Twins, Cardinals, Braves or Angels...because we simply don't have the ability to put all of our eggs in the basket of a FA superstar contract like the top 7-8 payroll teams do. Boras would never have his player sign that kind of "reverse" back-loaded contract...and KW/JR would certainly never approve, because their goal has always been to avoid the most expensive implications of any contract.

 

Yes, we should do a much better job in international talent procurement (especially Dominican and Venezuela), the draft and development...no doubt.

 

Still, what's the biggest lesson of 2005? Subtract Valentin and especially Ordonez and Carlos Lee from the payroll and that gives you the flexibility to bring in Pods, Iguchi, AJ, El Duque, Dye, Hermanson, Vizcaino, etc. Ironic, but we won that year with our lowest payroll, $65 million. Ever since then, we've spent MORE money but obviously not as efficiently or as wisely. It's also the main reason we're not making a Fielder, Oswalt or Haren acquisition, and those guys don't come close to $25 million per year, although Fielder certainly might in the future.

 

Now of course...your chances to compete are increased (although not exponentially) at each $10 million payroll tier you reach, but somebody quoted the fact that only about 37.5% of teams who have spent $100+ million ended up making the playoffs. There's simply no guarantee.

 

And you say the Cubs control 70% of the market, then proceed to say we're a Top 4 market...that really doesn't make sense. In some ways we are, but our attendance definitely has not been since 2006. Each market like SF/OAK, LA/Orange County, Balt/Washington, Chicago and NYC/Queens is unique. With the new Twins ballpark and the Tigers'/Illitch's continued willingness to outspend the Sox, we will undoubtedly continue to act like a "stealth" middle market team in a large market.

Maybe I should clarify myself. I said we should try to compete with the Yankees, not spend like them. I specifically said in my post what I expect payroll to be when we are at different levels of competition. When we are in tier 1, or 5 year rebuild, we should have a payroll below $80 million. When we expect to compete for the division and hope to catch lightning in a bottle in the playoffs, we should have a payroll between $80-100 million. When we are going all in and are in our World Series window, we should have at least a $100 million dollar payroll and preferably between $110 million and $125 million, and payroll should only be expected to stay there for 2-3 years while our opportunity to win a few World Series is greatest. Second I said we were a top 4 market in the AL, not the whole league. the Chicago metro area has 9-10 million people living there. Lets say 3 million people don't like baseball. Now you have 6-7 million people who like baseball. If the Cubs control 70% of the market, that leaves a market of 1.8-2.1 million people. I don't know if you could name another market for AL teams that is that big besides Boston, NYY, and LAA.EDIT-(I guess the Dallas-Fort Worth area would be about the same or bigger)All in all the team that I'd like to emulate is the Red Sox.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Elgin Slim

[Jack Parkman]

My biggest 2 gripes with the Sox organization are: 1.They need to spend more on the draft and international scouting/signings. If you have a top 10 talent available to draft where you are, or if you have a chance to sign a top international free agent, unless there are some serious question marks with injury, you take them and sign them, especially if you are a mid market team. You should spend less on free agents and more on developing your own players that are under your control for 6 years. 2. You should not trade all of your top ten prospects away if you are intent on keeping payroll in a $90-105 million range and compete with the best of them. Break in a pitcher and a position player, if you think they are ready, each year. You pick 3 guys you think are going to be the best major league players each year and keep them or break them in over the next few years and make the other 7 available for trade. Repeat prospect process each year.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Elgin Slim

[The Ginger Kid]

Probably followed by people hating that there arent impact players in the minors, while clamoring to make big trades at the deadline by dealing top prospects.

so, so true

[bigruss]

Apparently people think its bad for a team to improve in areas in which they are lacking and that could really help the team.

 

The company I work for does a lot of things well, and in some areas excellent. Does that mean the company should overlook some areas that would help the business overall because the other areas are doing well in the business? No, not at all. The organization should be continually trying to improve all facets, even if they are doing well in some of them.

[Jordan4life_2007]

Apparently people think its bad for a team to improve in areas in which they are lacking and that could really help the team.

 

The company I work for does a lot of things well, and in some areas excellent. Does that mean the company should overlook some areas that would help the business overall because the other areas are doing well in the business? No, not at all. The organization should be continually trying to improve all facets, even if they are doing well in some of them.

 

Just wanted to say you've been dead-on with every post you've made in this thread. I think I have to learn how better to express myself without pissing people off.

[ScottyDo]

Apparently people think its bad for a team to improve in areas in which they are lacking and that could really help the team.

 

The company I work for does a lot of things well, and in some areas excellent. Does that mean the company should overlook some areas that would help the business overall because the other areas are doing well in the business? No, not at all. The organization should be continually trying to improve all facets, even if they are doing well in some of them.

Your company needs to improve its shipping/receiving process but has to funnel money from sales to make that work. Do you do it? IMO, the answer is maybe, depending on what the cost is.

 

The club wants to improve its DH situation, but at what cost? Before the season started, it would have been a cash consideration. Now, it's prospects. Either way, it costs something. It's a risk analysis type of situation: do what you think gives you the best chance of a positive return. I think KW has done a phenomenal job of just that. I don't think, over his tenure, he's ever just ignored holes on the team, but he may have chosen not to plug them at the cost of other facets of the organization.

 

If it were as simple as your example makes it sound, "get players to fill holes", and we had a GM who had his thumb up his butt instead, I would totally agree with you. You'd have to be a fool NOT to agree with that. The fact is, though, that it's not that simple: if you plug all holes at any cost, you're going to wind up with a HUGE deficit somewhere in your system. And most of the moves KW has made have been positive, some overwhelmingly so. Very few of his gambles have had a negative impact on the franchise. That could not be said for drafting during his early tenure, but even talent evaluation, of late, has seemingly improved.

 

And, as someone brought up earlier, you have stats like WAR for players where the value of a standard "replacement-level" guy is taken into account. You could (and should) take that into account for GM's and managers as well, IMO. Sure, KW isn't perfect but where does he compare with a standard, replacement-level GM? Do you really think he's worse than any random GM we'd be likely to end up with? As far as Ozzie goes, I could take him or leave him, but I do think he's got positive WAR-esque value too so I'm not rushing off to the scrap heap to make an exchange.

 

Verdict: Ozzie can stay or go, I vote stay with the utmost lukewarmness. But KW does a fine job and should stay on IMO.

Edited July 28, 2010 by ScottyDo

[greg775]

I'm not trying to stir anything up, but wouldn't it be nice to move this thread somewhere else until at least the Sox, say, finally fall out of first place?

I think it gives internet Soxdom a bad name.

Am I wrong to think this is a dumb topic at this time?? It's a nonsequitir (sp).

I mean we are in first place, even though it is a weak division. Teams don't fire people when they are in first place. Also, the team's road trip wasn't disastrous (if you want disastrous, wait til we go to NY and Boston on the same trip), and it is on a nine or 10 game home win streak (knock on wood).

 

I do realize we could fall out of first at any time, but still, isn't the name of this thread kind of embarrassing considering the "current" status of the team?

Edited July 28, 2010 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Your company needs to improve its shipping/receiving process but has to funnel money from sales to make that work. Do you do it? IMO, the answer is maybe, depending on what the cost is.

 

The club wants to improve its DH situation, but at what cost? Before the season started, it would have been a cash consideration. Now, it's prospects. Either way, it costs something. It's a risk analysis type of situation: do what you think gives you the best chance of a positive return. I think KW has done a phenomenal job of just that. I don't think, over his tenure, he's ever just ignored holes on the team, but he may have chosen not to plug them at the cost of other facets of the organization.

 

If it were as simple as your example makes it sound, "get players to fill holes", and we had a GM who had his thumb up his butt instead, I would totally agree with you. You'd have to be a fool NOT to agree with that. The fact is, though, that it's not that simple: if you plug all holes at any cost, you're going to wind up with a HUGE deficit somewhere in your system. And most of the moves KW has made have been positive, some overwhelmingly so. Very few of his gambles have had a negative impact on the franchise. That could not be said for drafting during his early tenure, but even talent evaluation, of late, has seemingly improved.

 

And, as someone brought up earlier, you have stats like WAR for players where the value of a standard "replacement-level" guy is taken into account. You could (and should) take that into account for GM's and managers as well, IMO. Sure, KW isn't perfect but where does he compare with a standard, replacement-level GM? Do you really think he's worse than any random GM we'd be likely to end up with? As far as Ozzie goes, I could take him or leave him, but I do think he's got positive WAR-esque value too so I'm not rushing off to the scrap heap to make an exchange.

 

Verdict: Ozzie can stay or go, I vote stay with the utmost lukewarmness. But KW does a fine job and should stay on IMO.

 

 

And this is where that nightmare scenario for KW and Sox fans comes in.

 

We all lived through 2001-2004, when we had negligible, at best, fifth starters...

 

One of the main points of emphasis after 2005 was to build a rotation with depth...and he accomplished that by adding Javy and having McCarthy ready to go in case of injury.

 

We obviously struggled in that area last year with Colon and Contreras, and KW perhaps got lucky with Garcia's performance the first half...but if we trade Hudson now, that leaves us with Garcia and Torres as the 4th and 5th.

 

With Liriano and Pavano pitching so well recently, and Duensing's record of success out of the pen as well as so far as a starter, the rotation would be my biggest concern, in terms of bringing in a little insurance for both Garcia and Hudson. Two weeks ago, you would have said we might have the advantage over the Twins (they still have a much better offense, despite the loss of Morneau) but with Slowey pitching better again and Baker has the ability and proven track record, then the White Sox seemingly need to maintain their current advantage in the pitching (both starting and relief), defense (since Vizquel took over for Teahen and Alexei morphed into a Gold Glover) and speed areas.

 

I haven't made a comparison with the 2005 offense recently, I think we're 4th in the AL in homers and near the top in stolen bases still...obviously the OBP and OPS numbers are short because of Pierre, Beckham (until a month ago), AJ and the DH position. Maybe KW can pull off a miracle and address both 5th starter and DH, but I think going with Teahen/Viciedo is the move.

 

Unfortunately, Ozzie would seem more likely to keep Lillibridge/Kotsay and send down The Tank, and that's where I disagree...or even playing Kotsay in general so much over Viciedo. I'm sure there are good reasons, I just think Viciedo has a lot more potential to help the offense than TMK.

 

 

[greg775]

Unfortunately, Ozzie would seem more likely to keep Lillibridge/Kotsay and send down The Tank, and that's where I disagree...or even playing Kotsay in general so much over Viciedo. I'm sure there are good reasons, I just think Viciedo has a lot more potential to help the offense than TMK.

 

I agree.

Tank should stay.

I was going to copy and paste something off the AP notes story tonight. It said Kotsay's teammates burned 2 of Kotsay's bats before the game to take the hex off him. That's bad news. They are playing around trying to help Kotsay which probably means he's a great clubhouse guy and he's going nowhere. It was written in a light tone like Kotsay's teammates were trying to take the hex off him. He's obviously well liked and his role won't be reduced.

Edited July 28, 2010 by greg775

[Balta1701]

I agree.

Tank should stay.

I was going to copy and paste something off the AP notes story tonight. It said Kotsay's teammates burned 2 of Kotsay's bats before the game to take the hex off him. That's bad news. They are playing around trying to help Kotsay which probably means he's a great clubhouse guy and he's going nowhere. It was written in a light tone like Kotsay's teammates were trying to take the hex off him. He's obviously well liked and his role won't be reduced.

Like with Swisher's blow-up doll hex breaking ceremony?