Rosenthal on Nomar, Pie and Pierre

[YearofDaCubs]

Trading one sucky pitcher (Loaiza) for another one in Contreras is not laudable.

 

Neither is picking up a guy who hadn't had a full-season ERA below 4.06 since 1998 (Hermanson).

 

Nor is signing a bar-fighting, arm-burning lunatic like Bobby Jenks.

 

Nor is picking up an injury-prone strikeout king in Dye.

 

Nor is hiring a classless arrogant ass as manager.

 

I really don't see why Williams gets credit from anybody.

 

HAHHAH yet all of these pieces got them to the WS. Why the hate? Is it bitterness? Hey, I'm a Cubs fan and I give credit where it's due. KW deserves credit for winning.

It's bitterness, yes, but all these moves were much more likely to be bad ones than good ones. The fact that all of these guys ended up having their best years ever (or in Dye's case, his best year this millennium anyway) is just plain lucky.

I call BS. It is not lucky. It was risky yes but some of these players were quality. A team wins a WS and it's all about luck? Come on. There's more to it than that.

 

So if the Cubs win the WS this year, does that make all the bad moves Hendry made good? Of course not. Every team has a chance to win the WS, winning it doesn't mean you made the right moves, or even competent ones.

The white sox had Rowand who the previous year had a breakout year yet didn't do so great last year. Dye was a solid pickup for them in RF. Podsednik was their leadoff hitter. Upgraded the catcher position. The pitchers were huge for them but let's not forget most of them came here via trade, waiver pickups, and FA signings. He also picked the manager to take them to the WS. A manager that is better than ours. If we win the WS I will give credit to Hendry, the manager, and the players for getting us there and winning. It's a combination of a lot of things and not all luck. The White Sox did it, we are still waiting and probably for a long time to come.

 

If you want to argue that Williams made good moves, go ahead. I'll disagree mostly, but that's different than saying "He won a WS, so he's good". That's just backward logic.

I never said he was the best GM in baseball but a lot of you are discounting what he did.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If you want to argue that Williams made good moves, go ahead. I'll disagree mostly, but that's different than saying "He won a WS, so he's good". That's just backward logic.

I never said he was the best GM in baseball but a lot of you are discounting what he did.

 

What's the difference between the White Sox in '04 and '05? Pitching, pitching, pitching, and some defense. If you want to give Williams credit for making the defense better, fine. But he had nothing to do with half their rotation pitching out of their mind.

[YearofDaCubs]

If you want to argue that Williams made good moves, go ahead. I'll disagree mostly, but that's different than saying "He won a WS, so he's good". That's just backward logic.

I never said he was the best GM in baseball but a lot of you are discounting what he did.

 

What's the difference between the White Sox in '04 and '05? Pitching, pitching, pitching, and some defense. If you want to give Williams credit for making the defense better, fine. But he had nothing to do with half their rotation pitching out of their mind.

Well, he was the one who traded for Garcia, and Contreras late last year and also signed ELDuque and drafted Brandon McCarthy and took a risk by picking up Jenks through waivers. So yes he did have something to do with their rotations. And who knows signing a talented catcher in AJ might have helped the pitchers as well. Pretty big difference on the roster from 04 to 05.

[Andy]

Funny how in retrospect, if a bad move works out, it is praised as "taking a risk", but if it doesn't, it is criticized as ruining chemistry or taking an unnecessary gamble et al.

[Drew Doughty]

Not really. He took a risk and it worked out. Hendry took a risk on Nomar and it failed.

 

KW took A LOT of risks, and he got absurdly lucky to have all of his moves for pitching work out way more than anyone expected.

[YearofDaCubs]

Not really. He took a risk and it worked out. Hendry took a risk on Nomar and it failed.

 

KW took A LOT of risks, and he got absurdly lucky to have all of his moves for pitching work out way more than anyone expected.

His risks paid off and he deserves credit IMO. To me, it's that simple. If Hendry took some risks and they paid off he deserves credit for them too.

[David]

Not really. He took a risk and it worked out. Hendry took a risk on Nomar and it failed.

 

KW took A LOT of risks, and he got absurdly lucky to have all of his moves for pitching work out way more than anyone expected.

His risks paid off and he deserves credit IMO. To me, it's that simple. If Hendry took some risks and they paid off he deserves credit for them too.

 

If you're playing blackjack and you hit on 19 and get a 2 for a 21, do you deserve credit for taking a risk or was it a stupid gamble nevertheless?

[YearofDaCubs]

Not really. He took a risk and it worked out. Hendry took a risk on Nomar and it failed.

 

KW took A LOT of risks, and he got absurdly lucky to have all of his moves for pitching work out way more than anyone expected.

His risks paid off and he deserves credit IMO. To me, it's that simple. If Hendry took some risks and they paid off he deserves credit for them too.

 

If you're playing blackjack and you hit on 19 and get a 2 for a 21, do you deserve credit for taking a risk or was it a stupid gamble nevertheless?

If it pays off, of course. The simple fact is it wasn't only the risks that got them there. It's not like the entire lineup was full of scrubs. Give credit where it's due. The GM deserves it. If you guys see it differently than so be it.

[indifferent]

Not really. He took a risk and it worked out. Hendry took a risk on Nomar and it failed.

 

KW took A LOT of risks, and he got absurdly lucky to have all of his moves for pitching work out way more than anyone expected.

His risks paid off and he deserves credit IMO. To me, it's that simple. If Hendry took some risks and they paid off he deserves credit for them too.

 

I agree with YearofDaCubs, this is a big issue for me. I value GMs for their ability to find the diamonds in the rough with no predictable course for success. If it's about identifying the most productive player regardless of salary or other teams (who can also statistically identify the same player), then have a computer do the work and maybe a sales guy on the front end to talk to the players.

 

Ndistops stated five good moves Williams made. Are they all lucky? Williams deserves more credit than that regardless of his track record and even if it's one year. It's not even like they were the wild card, they had the best record in the AL.

[Andy]

Not really. He took a risk and it worked out. Hendry took a risk on Nomar and it failed.

 

KW took A LOT of risks, and he got absurdly lucky to have all of his moves for pitching work out way more than anyone expected.

His risks paid off and he deserves credit IMO. To me, it's that simple. If Hendry took some risks and they paid off he deserves credit for them too.

 

I agree with YearofDaCubs, this is a big issue for me. I value GMs for their ability to find the diamonds in the rough with no predictable course for success. If it's about identifying the most productive player regardless of salary or other teams (who can also statistically identify the same player), then have a computer do the work and maybe a sales guy on the front end to talk to the players.

 

Ndistops stated five good moves Williams made. Are they all lucky? Williams deserves more credit than that regardless of his track record and even if it's one year. It's not even like they were the wild card, they had the best record in the AL.

Actually, I stated five moves that we on NSBB would have blasted Jim Hendry for making (and rightfully so). The fact that all five of those moves turned into gold does not say as much about Williams as it does about the fact that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, even a broken clock is right twice a day, all the other similar metaphors that have been used already in this thread.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Actually, I stated five moves that we on NSBB would have blasted Jim Hendry for making (and rightfully so). The fact that all five of those moves turned into gold does not say as much about Williams as it does about the fact that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, even a broken clock is right twice a day, all the other similar metaphors that have been used already in this thread.

 

At what point do these events become more than just coincidence? Where do we start giving credit where credit is due? When is it more than just a little luck? I listened to an interview with KW the other day that actually made me take notice of him for the first time. He mentioned most of the moves you did as part of his high risk, high reward category. He went balls-out trying to put together a winning team because he didn't care how the team finished if they didn't win it all (2nd or last is the same). What happened? He was right, and the WS champs are the South Siders. I call that a good job, not good fortune.

[Drew Doughty]

So all I have to do to be a good GM is get a team going with a bunch of injury prone guys or guys that have had good seasons 4 years ago and pray that they are successful? And he didn't take a ton of chances, really. He statistically worsened their offense. That's not "taking a chance", that's "being stupid".

 

He wasn't banking on his entire pitching staff having a unanimous career year. If he was, then he has a time machine, because that's beyond dumb otherwise.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Has anyone heard what Normar asking for this offseason?

[YearofDaCubs]

So all I have to do to be a good GM is get a team going with a bunch of injury prone guys or guys that have had good seasons 4 years ago and pray that they are successful? And he didn't take a ton of chances, really. He statistically worsened their offense. That's not "taking a chance", that's "being stupid".

 

He wasn't banking on his entire pitching staff having a unanimous career year. If he was, then he has a time machine, because that's beyond dumb otherwise.

So stupid he is wearing a world series ring. Yeah, whatever.

[Electron Blue]

Actually, I stated five moves that we on NSBB would have blasted Jim Hendry for making (and rightfully so). The fact that all five of those moves turned into gold does not say as much about Williams as it does about the fact that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while, even a broken clock is right twice a day, all the other similar metaphors that have been used already in this thread.

 

At what point do these events become more than just coincidence? Where do we start giving credit where credit is due? When is it more than just a little luck? I listened to an interview with KW the other day that actually made me take notice of him for the first time. He mentioned most of the moves you did as part of his high risk, high reward category. He went balls-out trying to put together a winning team because he didn't care how the team finished if they didn't win it all (2nd or last is the same). What happened? He was right, and the WS champs are the South Siders. I call that a good job, not good fortune.

 

Good questions. Seriously? I say give it a couple years. I think everyone would agree that a GM's job is to find the "diamonds in the rouch" and take risks on them. I think most would also agree that in the past, Kenny Williams has made some questionable (if not bad) moves. Give him a few years to see if maybe he truly does have an eye for the right risky move to make. But right now, I think a lot of Cub fans are justifiably doubtful of KW's ability.

[stitchface]

I give him credit for winning the world series. thats what he is paid to do. I don't think that means he'll be a good gm in the future though - although I like his moves so far this offseason. at least KW seems to recognize that he can improve his team in many ways - a concept seemingly lost on hendry.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

So all I have to do to be a good GM is get a team going with a bunch of injury prone guys or guys that have had good seasons 4 years ago and pray that they are successful? And he didn't take a ton of chances, really. He statistically worsened their offense. That's not "taking a chance", that's "being stupid".

 

He wasn't banking on his entire pitching staff having a unanimous career year. If he was, then he has a time machine, because that's beyond dumb otherwise.

 

In 2005, there was Ken Williams then the rest. 2004 was Theo Epstein then the rest. 2003 was Larry Beinfest then the rest and so on. He outperformed every other GM this past season. Give the man some credit. You can't seriously believe that a team can win the WS based on pure luck, can you? It's like I pointed out in my last post -- finishing 2nd or last really is no different. Winning it all is what's important.

 

If that "stupidity" brings a World Series to the Northside, call Aaron Brooks ( :wink: ) and offer him the GM job. We'll all be dancing in the streets next October.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Good questions. Seriously? I say give it a couple years. I think everyone would agree that a GM's job is to find the "diamonds in the rouch" and take risks on them. I think most would also agree that in the past, Kenny Williams has made some questionable (if not bad) moves. Give him a few years to see if maybe he truly does have an eye for the right risky move to make. But right now, I think a lot of Cub fans are justifiably doubtful of KW's ability.

 

I agree, and I'm not saying he is the next coming of God. My point is simply that luck and luck alone is NOT the reason the Sox won it all. He deserves credit, not to be vilified, for taking some chances that paid off in a big way.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This goes back to Davhern's blackjack example. Williams took some gambles, and in some cases, he made straight out bad decisions. Having your team win the WS does not mean you were the best GM in baseball that year, or anywhere near it. It's the same reason that Dusty and Guillen and other horrible managers reach and win the world series, yet are not good managers.

[stitchface]

He only took big risks if he extended long term expensive contracts. Jenks was a good risk. Which moves were bad risks? Trading for Posednik is the only really bad risk I see from KW last year. What was the worst scenario if things don't work out? What alternatives did he have?

[stitchface]

This goes back to Davhern's blackjack example. Williams took some gambles, and in some cases, he made straight out bad decisions. Having your team win the WS does not mean you were the best GM in baseball that year, or anywhere near it. It's the same reason that Dusty and Guillen and other horrible managers reach and win the world series, yet are not good managers.

 

You realize you can't win at blackjack, right? The odds are always against you. I think that's a poor example.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

This goes back to Davhern's blackjack example. Williams took some gambles, and in some cases, he made straight out bad decisions. Having your team win the WS does not mean you were the best GM in baseball that year, or anywhere near it. It's the same reason that Dusty and Guillen and other horrible managers reach and win the world series, yet are not good managers.

 

You realize you can't win at blackjack, right? The odds are always against you. I think that's a poor example.

 

Did you see the example? If you hit on 19 and get a 2, does that make you smart? No, it makes you lucky. It's not a perfect example, but it's the idea of going against the best move and still having it work out.

 

BTW, ever read "Bringing Down the House"? You can win at blackjack.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

I thought the Contreras trade was horrible when he made it. Lots of "experts" thought the García trade and sign was bad. I use to think he was horrible but he seems to be improving as a GM.

[YearofDaCubs]

Nobody said he was the best GM but some fans completely discount the fact that he deserves credit. They call it luck, I call it sour grapes.

[Drew Doughty]

he took a risk on Dye

he took a chance on Iguchi

was taking a chance on Contreras, Hernandez, Garcia. Garland had done all of nothing so far in his career

Hermanson had done nothing

Politte had done nothing

Jenks was a risk

 

Hernandez is the only one thta didn't work out, really. And even he came up huge in the playoffs. it's not that he found a diamond in the rough, it's that he inexplicably managed to turn a bunch of polluted water into fine wine.