hogan873 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 12:28 AM) The discussion switched back to Kenny so I commented on that. People who think I'm trolling generally want everything to be all rosy on here with nobody disagreeing with them. Why the f*** would a die hard White Sox fan like me troll on a White Sox board? I love the White Sox. There is plenty of disagreeing on this site. But you have a tendency to state the same thing over and over. And that is KW should be out of a job because of Dunn, Peavy, and Rios. You have to be realistic. Dunn looked like a good signing to just about everyone. His collapse could not have been forecasted, not even by Dunn himself. The peavy deal didn't look too bad, either, although there were more people concerned about the deal. But, at the time, the only issue with the guy was an ankle injury...from running the bases. The Rios deal...well that stunk. Even at the time it happened there were plenty of perplexed folks. Taking on his swollen salary and ego, coupled with his tendency to be a shlub...and it worked out about as well as could be expected. In my opinion, if KW should have been fired it would be for his letting Ozzie make an ass of himself and the White Sox time and again. I know you love Ozzie, and I'm sure he's a nice guy who'd be great to have a beer with. But Ozzie started making a lot of bad decisions down the stretch, and it became more and more evident that he was not doing what was asked of him by his boss. And then there's the matter of him quitting. As others have mentioned, KW has made plenty of good deals, too. If you were to make a list of good deals and bad deals, the good list would probably be longer. But we, as most humans, have a tendency to weigh the bad heavier than the good. And I would agree that the bad deal of Rios outweighs the good deals of Danks and Sale. So, if you believe that KW should be gone, fine, go ahead and talk about it. But have a better argument than Rios, Peavy, and Dunn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 07:19 AM) The Rios deal...well that stunk. Even at the time it happened there were plenty of perplexed folks. Taking on his swollen salary and ego, coupled with his tendency to be a shlub...and it worked out about as well as could be expected. I've bumped/linked to the Rios claim thread several times here, almost everyone was excited about that deal when it happened Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 07:14 PM) Dunn's 2011 season doesn't mean it was the wrong move to make, it means it was a move that went wrong, and when evaluating a GM that needs to be taken into consideration. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 07:46 AM) I've bumped/linked to the Rios claim thread several times here, almost everyone was excited about that deal when it happened I plead the 5th.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 09:00 AM) I plead the 5th.... I called him a former all star who we picked up for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) I've bumped/linked to the Rios claim thread several times here, almost everyone was excited about that deal when it happened Whether soxtalk liked the move or not is irrelevant. I know you're not exactly arguing that it isn't, but whether soxtalk or the fanbase, or any part thereof supported a move at the time it occurred is certainly not a barometer for whether the move was a wise one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) I think in context, the only blame goes for investing so much in a one-dimensional player. Then again, with the power numbers down, having a real/genuine power threat (LH to boot) in the middle of the line-up seemed critical to our success...how much you want to blame Ozzie and KW for throwing Thome under the bus, that's best left to another thread or discussion. http://www.yankeeanalysts.com/2011/07/is-t...an-league-31965 The thing is, the average American League team spent only $6.8 million on the DH position and we're spending almost twice that...which is forcing us to cut from other areas (also due to Peavy/Rios underperforming). Over the same five-year period, the 14 American League teams employed something like a full-time DH in 57 out of 70 possible seasons. (“Full time” is defined here as 300 or more plate appearances with at least half the player's games at DH.) The average salary of those players? $6.8 million. And that doesn't include the cost of DHs who break down due to age or injury. Travis Hafner made more than $8 million in 2008, Ken Griffey $2.3 million in 2010, and neither made it to 300 plate appearances. Frank Thomas had a $12.5 million salary when he was with the Blue Jays in 2008, Pat Burrell was making $9 million from the Rays in 2010, Shea Hillenbrand $6 million from the Angels in 2007. All three were cut early in the year and were signed for a song by other teams. The financial impact of the Designated Hitter rule also widens the gap between big- and small-market teams. Just compare the haves and have-nots: Over the same five seasons, the average AL team that finished .500 or worse had a payroll of $71.1 million, indistinguishable from the $72.0 million average in the NL but $37.3 million behind the winning teams, while the NL teams trailed the winners in their league by $17.6 million. Some of those American League teams kept their costs down by just giving up. Sure, a well-run small-market team can compete by filling roster spots with players who haven’t reached free agency yet and thus are paid below their market value. But the more roster spots there are to fill, the harder it is to use the farm system to keep up with the teams that are buying high-end veterans on the open market, especially the big sluggers who generally fill the ranks of DHs. The average age of the starting DHs in the AL over that period? 32.7 years old. Aside from Billy Butler on the 2007-08 Royals, no American League team employed a DH under the age of 25, and the only AL franchises to use a regular DH under age 29 were the Royals, Twins, Rays, and Blue Jays. And the DH gives roster flexibility to the biggest players in the free-agent market. The Yankees, for example, could move guys like Jason Giambi and Hideki Matsui there near the end of big contracts to make room for still more high-priced acquisitions. http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle...ics-of-baseball Edited February 9, 2012 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldsox Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (Heads22 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 07:14 PM) Dunn's 2011 season doesn't mean it was the wrong move to make, it means it was a move that went wrong, and when evaluating a GM that needs to be taken into consideration. Baloney! No one else ever paid that much for that long to a DH, who was/is overweight, slow, can't play defense. Not to mention the #1 draft choice that we surrendered. When the deal with Dunn was made, there was much more that could go wrong than could go right, and it happened. Defending Kenny on this move is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) Baloney! No one else ever paid that much for that long to a DH, who was/is overweight, slow, can't play defense. Not to mention the #1 draft choice that we surrendered. When the deal with Dunn was made, there was much more that could go wrong than could go right, and it happened. Defending Kenny on this move is ridiculous. Hindsight is 20/20. No one said that when he was signed. The closest to it was that we overpaid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) Baloney! No one else ever paid that much for that long to a DH, who was/is overweight, slow, can't play defense. Not to mention the #1 draft choice that we surrendered. When the deal with Dunn was made, there was much more that could go wrong than could go right, and it happened. Defending Kenny on this move is ridiculous. Ortiz got a 4 yr, $52 mil extension, close enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 09:33 AM) Ortiz got a 4 yr, $52 mil extension, close enough Especially when you factor in the time between those two deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Was oldsox the one who called him an NL-only hitter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) Baloney! No one else ever paid that much for that long to a DH, who was/is overweight, slow, can't play defense. Not to mention the #1 draft choice that we surrendered. When the deal with Dunn was made, there was much more that could go wrong than could go right, and it happened. Defending Kenny on this move is ridiculous. All of this is pretty ridiculous and revisionist, but the bold part is definitely the dumbest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 09:37 AM) Was oldsox the one who called him an NL-only hitter? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milkman delivers Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 09:37 AM) Was oldsox the one who called him an NL-only hitter? I believe that was Whitesoxrandy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) Baloney! No one else ever paid that much for that long to a DH, who was/is overweight, slow, can't play defense. Not to mention the #1 draft choice that we surrendered. When the deal with Dunn was made, there was much more that could go wrong than could go right, and it happened. Defending Kenny on this move is ridiculous. You are also the one who thinks KW had a bad decade. Look, there are plenty of reasons to get on Kenny's case. Rios, the Hudson trade, maybe Peavy, handling of the Ozzie situations, poor scouting (though that seems to be improving), the Wilder fiasco, lack of depth in the minors... but the Dunn signing really isn't one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) How Kenny has kept his job is beyond me. Dunn.Peavy. Rios. Those are the kind of baseball players who get a guy fired. If Reed fails at closer, he also gave away the Sox only closer candidate for this season. Sergio for nothing. Real wise. Oh I forgot. Ozzie didn't have to play Rios and Dunn so that takes Kenny off the hook. Oz is at fault for playing them. Why do you type every sentence on it's own line? Is that your calling card? Aside from the insanity contained within, I can always tell a greg775 post visually because of that strange method. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PorkChopExpress Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 8, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) How Kenny has kept his job is beyond me. Dunn.Peavy. Rios. Those are the kind of baseball players who get a guy fired. If Reed fails at closer, he also gave away the Sox only closer candidate for this season. Sergio for nothing. Real wise. Oh I forgot. Ozzie didn't have to play Rios and Dunn so that takes Kenny off the hook. Oz is at fault for playing them. Kenny's not off the hook. The payroll and roster still suffer and that's Kenny's domain. But if there were better options on the bench and Oz chose not to play those better options because of what the players make salary-wise, he simply was not trying to win. It was not Kenny's decision who plays and who doesn't. Oz made the lineups, remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI1020 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) All of this is pretty ridiculous and revisionist, but the bold part is definitely the dumbest. I wish I could say that I knew this move would be a bad one, but I can't. I was mildly enthusiastic about it. While no one could have predicted the complete meltdown, some were sharp enough to see that this had a good chance to be a lousy move. Dunn is very one dimensional, more suited to the now defunct steroid era. He had a drop off in the second half of 2010, and seemed unhappy to be a DH. Kenny almost always seems to screw up when he gets lusty after some big acquisition. His tenure started off rocky, and then improved when on a budget he was forced to improvise. He did a great job of putting together the 2005 team and then reverted back to swinging for the fences. Like Dunn, he strikes out a lot. As for Dunn I just hope that somehow he has a decent start so he can be moved. I do appreciate that he's not a surly loser like Rios, or overly talkative like Peavy, but I'd still like to see him go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty34 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (PorkChopExpress @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) Kenny's not off the hook. The payroll and roster still suffer and that's Kenny's domain. But if there were better options on the bench and Oz chose not to play those better options because of what the players make salary-wise, he simply was not trying to win. It was not Kenny's decision who plays and who doesn't. Oz made the lineups, remember. There weren't better options on the bench. That's why Dunn was signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (pittshoganerkoff @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 12:19 PM) There is plenty of disagreeing on this site. But you have a tendency to state the same thing over and over. And that is KW should be out of a job because of Dunn, Peavy, and Rios. You have to be realistic. Dunn looked like a good signing to just about everyone. His collapse could not have been forecasted, not even by Dunn himself. The peavy deal didn't look too bad, either, although there were more people concerned about the deal. But, at the time, the only issue with the guy was an ankle injury...from running the bases. The Rios deal...well that stunk. Even at the time it happened there were plenty of perplexed folks. Taking on his swollen salary and ego, coupled with his tendency to be a shlub...and it worked out about as well as could be expected. In my opinion, if KW should have been fired it would be for his letting Ozzie make an ass of himself and the White Sox time and again. I know you love Ozzie, and I'm sure he's a nice guy who'd be great to have a beer with. But Ozzie started making a lot of bad decisions down the stretch, and it became more and more evident that he was not doing what was asked of him by his boss. And then there's the matter of him quitting. As others have mentioned, KW has made plenty of good deals, too. If you were to make a list of good deals and bad deals, the good list would probably be longer. But we, as most humans, have a tendency to weigh the bad heavier than the good. And I would agree that the bad deal of Rios outweighs the good deals of Danks and Sale. So, if you believe that KW should be gone, fine, go ahead and talk about it. But have a better argument than Rios, Peavy, and Dunn. QUOTE (oldsox @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) Baloney! No one else ever paid that much for that long to a DH, who was/is overweight, slow, can't play defense. Not to mention the #1 draft choice that we surrendered. When the deal with Dunn was made, there was much more that could go wrong than could go right, and it happened. Defending Kenny on this move is ridiculous. 1.) I like that post a lot, but I just don't understand why Peavy, Rios, Dunn aren't enough reasons to bury Kenny. Having those guys cost me my favorite player in Mark. I will say this. The booing will start on Opening Day this year and The Cell will be a very very negative place to be with all 3 of those guys getting booed big time all year IMO unless they produce. It will be such a negative place to be. 2.) I love that post. Post of the new year. A lot of Sox fans were against the Dunn signing. My dad was furious. Said Dunn would be a bust. I trusted the folks on here who were so excited and figured it'd be nice to have an automatic 40 homer guy to go with Paulie. Edited February 9, 2012 by greg775 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 07:40 PM) Why do you type every sentence on it's own line? Is that your calling card? Aside from the insanity contained within, I can always tell a greg775 post visually because of that strange method. I think it's easy to read when long paragraphs are split up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 QUOTE (greg775 @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 05:53 PM) I think it's easy to read when long paragraphs are split up. Honestly, are you Forrest Gump? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 10, 2012 -> 01:16 AM) Honestly, are you Forrest Gump? What do you mean by that? Go Sox! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 9, 2012 -> 06:16 PM) Honestly, are you Forrest Gump? Greg is annoying as f***. But c'mon now. He's not that bad. There's someone(s) much worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.