99!

[idseer]

99 losses .....

no doubt in my mind the sox will be better next year (pretty much have to be). question is will they really compete. i say they will not, even without knowing all the changes that are sure to be made.

to start with, management from top to bottom will be the same and this alone will prevent any meaningful recovery. the owner doesn't know what he's doing, the vice president doesn't know what he's doing and certainly the manager doesn't know what he's doing. it remains to be seen if the gm knows what he's doing.

the team will still have a couple complete losers on it that will have to play simply because they're making so much money. that would be dunn and danks so we start off in the hole. it remains to be seen what will happen with paul. either he'll stay for a lot less money or not. i hope he can stay and perhaps develop himself into a decent coach and still grab an ab here and there and maybe do us some good.
beckham will start at second or short because he had that nice limited at bat average for awhile tho he dropped into the .260's when all was said and done. i predict he goes back to being his old self next year. good field ... no hit! i think a. garcia looks to be set in right but i don't expect him to be any better than rios was out there, at least next season. i hope he has a higher upside eventually. probably de aza in center who is at least average. i expect (hope) aram will be gone. otherwise will have the same crud at ss.

as for catching, third base, first base, left field .... who knows? between gillaspie, viciedo, semein, phegly, gonzalez, flowers, danks and keppinger those positions will be filled somehow but none of them thrill me much. perhaps a trade or fa signing will help here.

pitching was our best department. and it's not great. sale, looking a little more human, will remain our number 1 but the sox are making noise about trading our 2nd best in quintana ... which would be very stupid imo. 3rd best is santiago whom i also like. beyond that reinzo and johnson look promising. axelrod does NOT. danks will unfortunately be taking up a spot as someone no better than a 4th or 5th tho the idiot manager will no doubt pencil him in as their #2 starter.

as for relief ... i will come right out and say it. reed is not going to cut it as a closer. 40 saves be damned! most of those saves were hand-picked opportunities and he blew leads or lost games way too much for my satisfaction. when you watch him pitch it's evident he doesn't have much of an arsenal. jones looked like crap this year and none of the other relievers impress me as being major leaguers. if this bullpen does not improve it will kill us next year.


it will be a 2 or 3 year process yet to turn this bunch into a good team ..... and then only if it's handled well (big IF).

 

[msgkings322]

99 losses .....

no doubt in my mind the sox will be better next year (pretty much have to be). question is will they really compete. i say they will not, even without knowing all the changes that are sure to be made.

to start with, management from top to bottom will be the same and this alone will prevent any meaningful recovery. the owner doesn't know what he's doing, the vice president doesn't know what he's doing and certainly the manager doesn't know what he's doing. it remains to be seen if the gm knows what he's doing.

the team will still have a couple complete losers on it that will have to play simply because they're making so much money. that would be dunn and danks so we start off in the hole. it remains to be seen what will happen with paul. either he'll stay for a lot less money or not. i hope he can stay and perhaps develop himself into a decent coach and still grab an ab here and there and maybe do us some good.
beckham will start at second or short because he had that nice limited at bat average for awhile tho he dropped into the .260's when all was said and done. i predict he goes back to being his old self next year. good field ... no hit! i think a. garcia looks to be set in right but i don't expect him to be any better than rios was out there, at least next season. i hope he has a higher upside eventually. probably de aza in center who is at least average. i expect (hope) aram will be gone. otherwise will have the same crud at ss.

as for catching, third base, first base, left field .... who knows? between gillaspie, viciedo, semein, phegly, gonzalez, flowers, danks and keppinger those positions will be filled somehow but none of them thrill me much. perhaps a trade or fa signing will help here.

pitching was our best department. and it's not great. sale, looking a little more human, will remain our number 1 but the sox are making noise about trading our 2nd best in quintana ... which would be very stupid imo. 3rd best is santiago whom i also like. beyond that reinzo and johnson look promising. axelrod does NOT. danks will unfortunately be taking up a spot as someone no better than a 4th or 5th tho the idiot manager will no doubt pencil him in as their #2 starter.

as for relief ... i will come right out and say it. reed is not going to cut it as a closer. 40 saves be damned! most of those saves were hand-picked opportunities and he blew leads or lost games way too much for my satisfaction. when you watch him pitch it's evident he doesn't have much of an arsenal. jones looked like crap this year and none of the other relievers impress me as being major leaguers. if this bullpen does not improve it will kill us next year.


it will be a 2 or 3 year process yet to turn this bunch into a good team ..... and then only if it's handled well (big IF).

Well yeah, they obviously won't be good next year, nor should they even want to try to be. They have finally gotten the memo that to build a team properly in this day and age you have to bottom out, get rid of your bad contracts, and stockpile youth. Then once you are close, you sign a free agent or two.

I think the new GM gets that, and has convinced ownership to go along. I think their attitude used to be 'we can't bottom out, we won't draw fans' but clearly doing it the other way wasn't working either. So now they have only one more albatross contract after 2014 (Danks), so I expect 2015 they can start to compete perhaps, 2016 for sure.

Yes the field manager is nothing special but in baseball the field manager is almost a meaningless position in terms of wins and losses. Their decisions in most games that aren't obvious by the book choices are few and far between. Their role is really about managing people, keeping them happy, keeping the clubhouse loose, etc. That's why guys that aren't great at game strategy can have winning teams, like Guillen, or Dusty Baker, or Don Mattingly, etc. Ventura's no worse than those guys. And ownership is only as competent as the GM they hire, right now I feel they have the right guy, or at least the guy who gets what has to be done. Also ownership's willingness to spend counts, and this group doesn't have a problem with keeping the payroll in the top third, so no problem there.

So it goes without saying they won't be good in 2014. But if they play it right that's a good thing. Teams like the Astros suck hard today, but I bet they don't in a couple of years...

 

[idseer]

first, it's good to see you again

a friend and i have this argument all the time about good mgr's vs bad. we never resolve anything of course but i stick with the idea that a bad manager does cost you between 5 and 10 games a year. a good manager simply does NOT cost you games at all ... or rarely. bad managing last year cost the sox the division imo.
it didn't cost them the division this season, but he DID cost the sox around 10 games ... imo.

i'm not sure you have it right with a few bad years and then you compete again. using your example, houston has just had 3 straight seasons of under .350 ball ... and hasn't really been any good since 2005. how long was kc the joke of the american league? prior to this year they had one winning season (83-79 in 2003) since 1994. yes, the sox have more money to spend ... but it's how you spend it, not just how much you spend. and their track record has been pretty bad for a pretty long time. until this team is sold i am not convinced they will ever compete again .

i hope for the best but prepare for the worst anymore with these guys.

 

[msgkings322]

first, it's good to see you again

a friend and i have this argument all the time about good mgr's vs bad. we never resolve anything of course but i stick with the idea that a bad manager does cost you between 5 and 10 games a year. a good manager simply does NOT cost you games at all ... or rarely. bad managing last year cost the sox the division imo.
it didn't cost them the division this season, but he DID cost the sox around 10 games ... imo.

i'm not sure you have it right with a few bad years and then you compete again. using your example, houston has just had 3 straight seasons of under .350 ball ... and hasn't really been any good since 2005. how long was kc the joke of the american league? prior to this year they had one winning season (83-79 in 2003) since 1994. yes, the sox have more money to spend ... but it's how you spend it, not just how much you spend. and their track record has been pretty bad for a pretty long time. until this team is sold i am not convinced they will ever compete again .

i hope for the best but prepare for the worst anymore with these guys.

10 games is simply WAY too much...Tony La Russa would not have won 73 games with this crew. But maybe I'm overstating it a bit, a bad manager will cost you a game or three, sure.

White Sox fans have rightly gotten used to pessimism, and your stance is the safe one, assume the worst and anything better is a positive surprise. I choose to be a little more optimistic. The ownership hired a better GM, they will spend money, they won a ring 8 years ago...they don't have to sell for the Sox to compete again. And in any case they aren't going to sell anytime soon so you should try to hope for success before they do.

I'm not saying all teams get to be contenders after a few bad years, the examples you provided being obvious. Then again those examples are teams that don't even really try to win, or didn't until recently, they just spent as little as they could to make a nice profit. The Sox aren't like those guys. So while hitting bottom and totally rebuilding isn't SUFFICIENT to contend, I think it's NECESSARY unless you have unlimited funds (Dodgers, Red Sox, etc). The Sox didn't understand that, always trying to muddle through. Now they seem to get it. Clear the decks, suck for 2-3 years, and go get 'em in 2016.

 

[idseer]

10 games is simply WAY too much...Tony La Russa would not have won 73 games with this crew. But maybe I'm overstating it a bit, a bad manager will cost you a game or three, sure.

White Sox fans have rightly gotten used to pessimism, and your stance is the safe one, assume the worst and anything better is a positive surprise. I choose to be a little more optimistic. The ownership hired a better GM, they will spend money, they won a ring 8 years ago...they don't have to sell for the Sox to compete again. And in any case they aren't going to sell anytime soon so you should try to hope for success before they do.

I'm not saying all teams get to be contenders after a few bad years, the examples you provided being obvious. Then again those examples are teams that don't even really try to win, or didn't until recently, they just spent as little as they could to make a nice profit. The Sox aren't like those guys. So while hitting bottom and totally rebuilding isn't SUFFICIENT to contend, I think it's NECESSARY unless you have unlimited funds (Dodgers, Red Sox, etc). The Sox didn't understand that, always trying to muddle through. Now they seem to get it. Clear the decks, suck for 2-3 years, and go get 'em in 2016.

i will respectfully disagree with you on the effects of a poor manager ... and we can let that go.

you skewed my stance a little. i didn't say i assumed the worst, i said i prepare for it. hoping for the best is something we all do.
as to whether the sox hired a better gm is still a question. and whether the sox will continue to have an open pocketbook is also a question. they have in the past, but they also realize they've been badly burned by it. BADLY! even a clueless owner must have a bottom line for ill-spent dollars.

i just don't see a 77 year old jerry reinsdork being that enthused going forward. he got his ring and i'd say he's close to removing himself. maybe he sells and maybe he gives it to his kids. i DO know he wants his family to sell if he were to die. sell the sox and keep the bulls! that's what he wants. doesn't sound like a guy who really is in love with the team, does it? it won't surprise me if he decides to step down in the next year or two.

oh and ....... it's a big assumption the sox suddenly 'get it'. they didn't have a choice in what happened this year. their moves were not necessarily those of a team that gets it but one that had no real options. fans, otoh, have 'gotten it' for some time now but obviously have no say.

only time will answer these points.

 

[msgkings322]

i will respectfully disagree with you on the effects of a poor manager ... and we can let that go.

you skewed my stance a little. i didn't say i assumed the worst, i said i prepare for it. hoping for the best is something we all do.
as to whether the sox hired a better gm is still a question. and whether the sox will continue to have an open pocketbook is also a question. they have in the past, but they also realize they've been badly burned by it. BADLY! even a clueless owner must have a bottom line for ill-spent dollars.

i just don't see a 77 year old jerry reinsdork being that enthused going forward. he got his ring and i'd say he's close to removing himself. maybe he sells and maybe he gives it to his kids. i DO know he wants his family to sell if he were to die. sell the sox and keep the bulls! that's what he wants. doesn't sound like a guy who really is in love with the team, does it? it won't surprise me if he decides to step down in the next year or two.

oh and ....... it's a big assumption the sox suddenly 'get it'. they didn't have a choice in what happened this year. their moves were not necessarily those of a team that gets it but one that had no real options. fans, otoh, have 'gotten it' for some time now but obviously have no say.

only time will answer these points.

I don't mind agreeing to disagree re the extent a bad manager hurts you (I'm not saying it doesn't, just not as much as you think). As an example, take the Sox closer (please! heh heh). Reed blew a lot of saves this year, but Ventura used him like any manager would. It's the guy he was given, and not even Earl Weaver could have made Thornton, or Crain, or whomever into a closer.

You make some good points re JR maybe selling at some point because he's older, and if so I guess you'll be happy about it. My point is it probably won't matter much, they already spend decent $, and it's the GM that has to have a plan and execute it.

So we agree they will suck next year. Where we disagree is how optimistic to be about the future. I think it's reasonable to hope for a rebuilt competitive team in 2015-2016. You seem to think there's very little chance. Since as fans it doesn't really matter what we think, it will be what it will be, and hopefully you will cheer up as things get built. As you say, only time will tell.

Here's hoping!

 

[craigk217]

OT to Iddy: Congrats on your "home town" Pirates this year making it into the playoffs. It's about time for that poor club/fanbase to be finally talking about the Pirates and not the Steelers/Pens. I luv it whenever a small market/low salary club can/does compete against & beat down some of the big boys.

Man, I would love to see a Cleveland/Pittsburgh series! Wouldnt that be awesome? Although, I'm sure the tv network geeks would gag at that ... mostly b/c they're not real baseball fans, nor really care about anything pure baseball fans want ... tis all about ratings and that makes me laugh if it were to come to that. I'd bet that just as many people (well maybe not) would tune into watch a series like that. I'm also kinda pulling for the A's for the reasons stated above ... I wish we had a Billy Beane ... he does it year in and year out.

 

[msgkings322]

OT to Iddy: Congrats on your "home town" Pirates this year making it into the playoffs. It's about time for that poor club/fanbase to be finally talking about the Pirates and not the Steelers/Pens. I luv it whenever a small market/low salary club can/does compete against & beat down some of the big boys.

Man, I would love to see a Cleveland/Pittsburgh series! Wouldnt that be awesome? Although, I'm sure the tv network geeks would gag at that ... mostly b/c they're not real baseball fans, nor really care about anything pure baseball fans want ... tis all about ratings and that makes me laugh if it were to come to that. I'd bet that just as many people (well maybe not) would tune into watch a series like that. I'm also kinda pulling for the A's for the reasons stated above ... I wish we had a Billy Beane ... he does it year in and year out.

Cleveland-Pittsburgh would probably be the lowest-rated Series ever, which I think right now is the Sox-Astros one...

But it's the one I'm rooting for, same reasons as you, fun to see small market low budget teams do well, especially when they haven't in a long time. The A's would also be fun to see win one.

 

[Bearsfan81]

Cleveland-Pittsburgh would probably be the lowest-rated Series ever, which I think right now is the Sox-Astros one...

But it's the one I'm rooting for, same reasons as you, fun to see small market low budget teams do well, especially when they haven't in a long time. The A's would also be fun to see win one.

Since 2005, the only WS to have a higher average viewership was 2009. Looks like we're headed for a big market WS anyway.