Yet another White Sox Winner thread!

[Milkman delivers]

So now you are going to start building your annual payroll with players that are now the property of other ballclubs. See how that works out for you.

 

What?

[iamshack]

What?

You're cutting Teahan. You've probably cut Pierre as well. For all I know, you might have cut Rios last season. So now you're on the hook for what $6, 8, 15 million of player salaries (total) for players no longer on your roster?All because you were certain changes needed to be made.

Edited May 23, 2011 by iamshack

[Milkman delivers]

The problem with Pierre is two-fold. First, even if you look at his history, his offensive contributions aren't that good, unless you love SB's. He has no power and doesn't walk that much. Add in the fact that we have a potential difference maker waiting in AAA, and it appears we are forgoing production because we need the prototypical leadoff hitter. So even using his historical numbers, we're not optimizing our offense by playing Pierre everday.

 

Second, and more importantly, you can't just look at historical numbers. You have to scout the player and see where he is physically and mechanically to project for the future. That's where the real problem comes into play. Pierre looks like he has lost a step and his SB numbers support that. If that's the case, and it's not due to injury, then waiting for him to perform at prior levels is stupid. He just wouldn't be the same player.

 

No matter how many singles Pierre hits in a week won't change these points. IMO, Viciedo is the better option right now and should be playing. Unfortunately, philosophical and/or financial reasons are preventing what is an obvious decision to maximize production.

 

Ah, there we go. Another person gets what I was saying.

[bigruss]

So now you are going to start building your annual payroll with players that are now the property of other ballclubs. See how that works out for you.

Or, you don't sign players like Teahen to an extension like the Sox did. Some contracts are going to turn bad, that's baseball, but what moves do you make to recover from those moves.

[BigSqwert]

Sox need to start playing better

[iamshack]

The problem with Pierre is two-fold. First, even if you look at his history, his offensive contributions aren't that good, unless you love SB's. He has no power and doesn't walk that much. Add in the fact that we have a potential difference maker waiting in AAA, and it appears we are forgoing production because we need the prototypical leadoff hitter. So even using his historical numbers, we're not optimizing our offense by playing Pierre everday.

 

Second, and more importantly, you can't just look at historical numbers. You have to scout the player and see where he is physically and mechanically to project for the future. That's where the real problem comes into play. Pierre looks like he has lost a step and his SB numbers support that. If that's the case, and it's not due to injury, then waiting for him to perform at prior levels is stupid. He just wouldn't be the same player.

 

No matter how many singles Pierre hits in a week won't change these points. IMO, Viciedo is the better option right now and should be playing. Unfortunately, philosophical and/or financial reasons are preventing what is an obvious decision to maximize production.

This isn't about Pierre.

This is about fans making short-sighted decisions because there are no consequences and then saying they were right.

 

Do you people not remember when you were a teenager and you knew everything? And now as you get older and understand what your parents were actually going through, you started to realize how incredibly arrogant you were to think you knew better than them?

 

 

[bigruss]

You're cutting Teahan. You've probably cut Pierre as well. For all I know, you might have cut Rios last season. So now you're on the hook for what $6, 8, 15 million of player salaries (total) for players no longer on your roster?All because you were certain changes needed to be made.

Just because KW had made those moves to acquire these players doesn't mean a fan would have. The only one out of those that i would have considered is Rios, and even then his contract would probably have been way to much for me to decide on taking.

 

 

[iamshack]

Or, you don't sign players like Teahen to an extension like the Sox did. Some contracts are going to turn bad, that's baseball, but what moves do you make to recover from those moves.

Russ, that's not the argument. Notice I am not addressing you in this thread because you actually make real points, instead of just claiming we need to replace this person and that person every other day because "he sucks."

 

 

[Milkman delivers]

You're cutting Teahan. You've probably cut Pierre as well. For all I know, you might have cut Rios last season. So now you're on the hook for $6, 8, 15 million of player salaries for players no longer on your roster. All because you were certain changes needed to be made.

 

You can assume all you want. I guess that's what you need to do to make my argument look worse.

 

The fact of the matter is that we don't have anyone else to come in and start consistently in CF. As bad as Rios has been, we have to stick with him. Lillibridge can get a start here and there (or Milledge if he were still on the team), but neither could cut it as the regular.

 

Pierre should be cut, yes. I'd try to trade both he and Teahen for anything, but chances are that nobody is taking either of them. They are sunk costs. They're going to get paid either way. Pierre is the worst player in baseball and brings nothing to the table. His average, if it raises, is empty and he has no value as a back-up due to his inability to play defense or steal. He is, without a doubt, a guy from whom you need to just cut ties. At this point, Teahen has some value as a pinch hitter with some left-handed power. He's not the absolute worst guy to have on the team if you're stuck with him, as we are. So unless a team is willing to take on at least some of his remaining salary in a trade, you can live with keeping him.

[Milkman delivers]

Russ, that's not the argument. Notice I am not addressing you in this thread because you actually make real points, instead of just claiming we need to replace this person and that person every other day because "he sucks."

 

I get the jab, but what other "points" should I be making? I explain that this player is the worst in baseball and how he brings nothing positive to the team, and suggest that we replace him with another player because he brings this, this, and this to the team.

 

Why is it, since my points are contrary to yours, do you act like I'm not even making points?

 

EDIT: And you're talking about arrogance.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Milkman delivers

[iamshack]

Just because KW had made those moves to acquire these players doesn't mean a fan would have. The only one out of those that i would have considered is Rios, and even then his contract would probably have been way to much for me to decide on taking.

Again, I'm not saying you would have, or all fans would have. The point is these decisions involve a little more than "he sucks" and we should cut him. But that's the type of analysis that often goes on in here because there is no accountability and it's not based in reality. Then I've got this guy posting in Tex's thread that he would have done a better job than Ozzie and Kenny. Give me a break.

[bigruss]

Russ, that's not the argument. Notice I am not addressing you in this thread because you actually make real points, instead of just claiming we need to replace this person and that person every other day because "he sucks."

I figured I was just on ignore!

 

I guess I was answering more along the line that fans can't do better than a real GM or manager, and although many fans may make irrational decisions based on sample sizes, etc., it doesn't mean that others actually think and explore what they would do long term as a GM.

[iamshack]

I get the jab, but what other "points" should I be making? I explain that this player is the worst in baseball and how he brings nothing positive to the team, and suggest that we replace him with another player because he brings this, this, and this to the team.

 

Why is it, since my points are contrary to yours, do you act like I'm not even making points?

 

EDIT: And you're talking about arrogance.

The point is you are claiming Lillibridge should be starting instead of Pierre when in reality, if you were the one making the decisions, Lillibridge would no longer be on the roster.

 

As for you mentioning arrogance, notice I am not sitting here criticizing the roster or the way the club is run. Very, very rarely do I call Ozzie into question. That's not because I think he is above criticism. That's because I don't have all the information he has and therefore I choose not to do so.

 

What I am arguing is that this is just a little more difficult than you or many, many others around here seem to want to admit. I readily admit I do not have all the answers, nor do I think I could just step in and suddenly use logic to make all the correct decisions.

[bigruss]

Again, I'm not saying you would have, or all fans would have. The point is these decisions involve a little more than "he sucks" and we should cut him. But that's the type of analysis that often goes on in here because there is no accountability and it's not based in reality. Then I've got this guy posting in Tex's thread that he would have done a better job than Ozzie and Kenny. Give me a break.

Not trying to be arrogant, but I do believe that if I had the same amount of years in a baseball organization, and was in the GM position that I could have more success than KW. I believe his weaknesses have really hurt his strengths and kept him back from really being a good GM. Again, this is if I had the experience of being in a baseball organization and knowing the resources and environment that being in his position offers.

 

 

[Milkman delivers]

The point is you are claiming Lillibridge should be starting instead of Pierre when in reality, if you were the one making the decisions, Lillibridge would no longer be on the roster.

 

As for you mentioning arrogance, notice I am not sitting here criticizing the roster or the way the club is run. Very, very rarely do I call Ozzie into question. That's not because I think he is above criticism. That's because I don't have all the information he has and therefore I choose not to do so.

 

What I am arguing is that this is just a little more difficult than you or many, many others around here seem to want to admit. I readily admit I do not have all the answers, nor do I think I could just step in and suddenly use logic to make all the correct decisions.

 

Your first sentence is already wrong. I believe I've said twice in this thread that Viciedo should be starting instead of Pierre, and that Lillibridge should get more starts revolving around the field.

[iamshack]

Not trying to be arrogant, but I do believe that if I had the same amount of years in a baseball organization, and was in the GM position that I could have more success than KW. I believe his weaknesses have really hurt his strengths and kept him back from really being a good GM. Again, this is if I had the experience of being in a baseball organization and knowing the resources and environment that being in his position offers.

Russ, I have little doubt that you would approach things from an analytical and educated perspective.

 

I also think you would be on the job for a few weeks and realize there is a lot more to it than you or I possibly imagined.

[bigruss]

The point is you are claiming Lillibridge should be starting instead of Pierre when in reality, if you were the one making the decisions, Lillibridge would no longer be on the roster.

 

As for you mentioning arrogance, notice I am not sitting here criticizing the roster or the way the club is run. Very, very rarely do I call Ozzie into question. That's not because I think he is above criticism. That's because I don't have all the information he has and therefore I choose not to do so.

 

What I am arguing is that this is just a little more difficult than you or many, many others around here seem to want to admit. I readily admit I do not have all the answers, nor do I think I could just step in and suddenly use logic to make all the correct decisions.

I do think Ozzie would probably blow me out of the water when it comes to managing, I wouldn't make as many "stupid" mistakes such as bunting with players who have shown they could never bunt before, but at the same time he does a pretty damn good job within the clubhouse from most accounts. That's just something that I can't say with any real confidence that I would be able to do as godo of a job without having more experience in that role. It is easier to compare moves of a GM than a manager against my own views.

[iamshack]

Your first sentence is already wrong. I believe I've said twice in this thread that Viciedo should be starting instead of Pierre, and that Lillibridge should get more starts revolving around the field.

You've already cut Lilli, so he can't start revolving around the field.

 

 

[bigruss]

Russ, I have little doubt that you would approach things from an analytical and educated perspective.

 

I also think you would be on the job for a few weeks and realize there is a lot more to it than you or I possibly imagined.

Very true, which is why having that experience of working in the organization for a number of years would expose one before being in that position of power. It's just like saying taht you feel you would do better than a current CEO, VP, etc, if you have had the same number of years of experience and resources as them, you may feel that your judgements, personality, skills would have been better.

[iamshack]

Very true, which is why having that experience of working in the organization for a number of years would expose one before being in that position of power. It's just like saying taht you feel you would do better than a current CEO, VP, etc, if you have had the same number of years of experience and resources as them, you may feel that your judgements, personality, skills would have been better.

Should you desire to qualify the statement like that, fine. Problem is, you're the only guy that did.

 

Secondly, no one here has ever been a GM or manager of a major league baseball team. None of us really know what it entails. That doesn't mean none of us could be successful. But it means all of us are really just using uninformed speculation to guess.

[Milkman delivers]

You've already cut Lilli, so he can't start revolving around the field.

 

Did I cut him, or did I send him to the minors? I'm not sure, because you hadn't yet told me what I would have done. You seem to be a wealth of knowledge of what others would have done.

 

(I'm also fairly certain that Lillibridge would have had to pass through waivers to be sent to the minors, before someone jumps in with that point)

 

And who's to say that Milledge would not also be doing well if he were on the major league team? I suppose that's also you.

[BigSqwert]

Secondly, no one here has ever been a GM or manager of a major league baseball team. None of us really know what it entails. That doesn't mean none of us could be successful. But it means all of us are really just using uninformed speculation to guess.

 

Yeah but this a large forum of baseball fans. Are we not allowed to have banter about the makeup of the team, personnel decisions, lineups, and in-game decisions? That's part of being a sports fan. Why are you so insulted by it?

Edited May 23, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Milkman delivers]

Yeah but this a large forum of baseball fans. Are we not allowed to have banter about the makeup of the team, personnel decisions, lineups, and in-game decisions? That's part of being a sports fan. Why are you so insulted by it?

 

No, he just wants everyone to qualify each post by saying "I know I don't have all of the inside information and the job is probably harder than I'm making it out to be, but..."

 

You know, as both Russ and I have already done in this thread.

[iamshack]

No, he just wants everyone to qualify each post by saying "I know I don't have all of the inside information and the job is probably harder than I'm making it out to be, but..."

 

You know, as both Russ and I have already done in this thread.

Not at all, just pointing out that if you were in charge the White Sox would have $125 million payroll and Charlotte's roster, since you cut everyone on our team in the name of change.

[iamshack]

Yeah but this a large forum of baseball fans. Are we not allowed to have banter about the makeup of the team, personnel decisions, lineups, and in-game decisions? That's part of being a sports fan. Why are you so insulted by it?

The point at which I became insulted was when I realized there was a thread in here where posters were asked whether they would have done a better job than Ozzie and Kenny, and by saying they would have, that therefore established it somehow as factual that a majority of Soxtalk posters would have indeed done better than Ozzie and Kenny.