White Sox get Vazquez according to ESPN

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'd argue that J.S. in Atlanta is the best GM. Putting together a team that can win its division 14 straight years has to count for something.

[Andy]

I'd argue that J.S. in Atlanta is the best GM. Putting together a team that can win its division 14 straight years has to count for something.

He's very good, too, but I was thinking just over the last 2 or 3 years, and Jocketty has put together video game-like offenses in that span while still having enough money left to bring in very good pitchers like Mulder.

[Kingmanarama]

He's very good, too, but I was thinking just over the last 2 or 3 years, and Jocketty has put together video game-like offenses in that span while still having enough money left to bring in very good pitchers like Mulder.

 

That Mulder deal has the potential to be an epic disaster. I don't know that Kenny Williams has ever traded a prospect who was as good as either Barton or Haren.

[bc2k]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

 

Perhaps a number of Sox pitchers had career years in part because of the work of their pitching coach, Don Cooper. Since KW was the one responsible for his hire, that looks to be another great KW addition.

 

2005 was the second year in which Cooper worked with a lot of the guys who had career years: Contreras, Garcia, Politte, Cotts, with Garland also blossoming with Cooper.

 

Also, while Pierzynski isn't too good at blocking pitches in the dirt or throwing out runners, he is known for his game calling skills and knowledge of the AL Central hitters. I'm sure he and the improved infield and outfield defense also helped the Sox pitchers perform better than they've ever have.

[Hector Villanuevas Pants]

It's by the bad luck of meeting a Sox team on a mission in 04 in the Series and the bad luck of running into the Astro pitching buzz saw that's kept the Cards from winning the last two world titles. The Cards IMO would have beaten the Sox fairly easily in the 05 Series had that matchup occurred.

 

I am stupider for having just read that.

[Andy]

It's by the bad luck of meeting a Sox team on a mission in 04 in the Series and the bad luck of running into the Astro pitching buzz saw that's kept the Cards from winning the last two world titles. The Cards IMO would have beaten the Sox fairly easily in the 05 Series had that matchup occurred.

 

I am stupider for having just read that.

How many runners in scoring position did Houston leave on base in that series again?

 

Now tell me that St. Louis's offense would have "Cubbed" away that many opportunities, and say it with a straight face.

[BigbadB]

The best team doesn't always or automatically win the World Series. The best 8 teams make the playoffs. Any one of those 8 could win a short series against one of the other teams.

 

The White Sox had a good team last year. They were NOT the best team in baseball.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

It's by the bad luck of meeting a Sox team on a mission in 04 in the Series and the bad luck of running into the Astro pitching buzz saw that's kept the Cards from winning the last two world titles. The Cards IMO would have beaten the Sox fairly easily in the 05 Series had that matchup occurred.

 

I am stupider for having just read that.

How many runners in scoring position did Houston leave on base in that series again?

 

Now tell me that St. Louis's offense would have "Cubbed" away that many opportunities, and say it with a straight face.

 

IMO St. Louis would have lost that series. Their offense and bullpen both looked gassed.

[YearofDaCubs]

It's by the bad luck of meeting a Sox team on a mission in 04 in the Series and the bad luck of running into the Astro pitching buzz saw that's kept the Cards from winning the last two world titles. The Cards IMO would have beaten the Sox fairly easily in the 05 Series had that matchup occurred.

 

I am stupider for having just read that.

How many runners in scoring position did Houston leave on base in that series again?

 

Now tell me that St. Louis's offense would have "Cubbed" away that many opportunities, and say it with a straight face.

That's ridiculous. How many more runs would the White Sox score on the Cardinals pitching staff? If their offense was so powerful why couldn't they club their way through the Astros? You're making excuses to try and discount what the White Sox did. Whatever floats your boat.

[YearofDaCubs]

The best team doesn't always or automatically win the World Series. The best 8 teams make the playoffs. Any one of those 8 could win a short series against one of the other teams.

 

The White Sox had a good team last year. They were NOT the best team in baseball.

Yeah ok. Having the best record in the AL and 1 away from leading the league and they weren't the best team. Many will agree that winning the WS makes you the best team.

[Hector Villanuevas Pants]

The best team doesn't always or automatically win the World Series. The best 8 teams make the playoffs. Any one of those 8 could win a short series against one of the other teams.

 

The White Sox had a good team last year. They were NOT the best team in baseball.

 

And which team was better? The Sox had the second best record in baseball (only one game behind the Cards). They were four games better than the next three teams in the AL during the regular season (Yankees, Angles, and Red Sox). Two of the three teams they easily beat in the playoffs losing one of eight games. They then swept the World Series. To me that's a pretty convincing argument that they were the best team.

[frostwyrm]

The Sox won 16 of their last 17 games. You could argue it was a fluky hot streak but it's still pretty damn impressive, especially considering the quality of the opponents.

[RockTheIvy]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

 

Yeah, but is it possible part of the reason their numbers were better because there defense was improved?

 

That could be part of the reason, I don't have the time to find and compare Fielding Independent ERA's right now, but if someone wants to, go for it.

 

Nah. I really gotta finish this knitting.

[stitchface]

In my opinion, a GM cannot control results. Obviously, you believe otherwise.

 

Wrong. I believe he can greatly influence results. And I believe Jim's moves greatly influenced the collapse of the Cubs, just like KW's moves greatly influenced the results of the WS.

Influence, sure. But do his decisions account for the overwhelming majority of a team's success or failure? I would say no. Things like managerial moves after he's hired, the quality of coaches after they're hired, individual performance, fluke injuries, quality of opponents, etc. are things largely out of their control. Therefore, I don't think a GM should be judged primarily on records and championships.

 

What is a good decision? How do we judge a good decision? How can we look at what KW has done and say he hasn't made good decisions?

 

As for your question, it depends on what you mean by similar. Do you mean, a GM that has gone out with a mediocre payroll and had his team win 81 or more games every year and won 99 games and a WS and kept improving his team? Yeah, take all that into account and any other GM who got that job done under those circumstances has to be considered to have done a good job. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that GM's play no role in the results of their team. Now, if we're talking about a NYY GM with their payroll finish every year like the Sox have finished under Williams, I wouldn't say he's done anything special. When you can spend 3 times the average, it's not hard to win.

There are a ton of ways to look at good decisions. I don't have a particular method. It involves immediate analysis of where the team was, what the team needed, what they gave up, and what other moves could have been done and both short-term and long-term production. But the important part for me is that each decision is evaluated without what the team ends up doing as the primary factor. And my opinion that he hasn't made, on average, good decisions is based on a collection of evaluations of all of his individual moves.

 

If you want to disagree, fine. But that's how I think a GM should be credited or held accountable. And I don't think it's absurd that I should form such opinions based on what I value.

 

Jon,

Do you really believe there is any way to judge a GM other than his team's record? I could making an argument on sample size, ie one season could be a fluke, but the GM is paid to put together a team to win. Therefore wins are the judgement criteria. I could see normalizing for payroll but long-term, wins are what GMs are paid to create. I honestly don't see any basis for claiming GMs don't influence won-lost record. Definitely this should be measured over a long period of time, but I think Goony has made some great points regarding KW's track record.

[8-8-88]

I didn't know ESPN had the rights to Vasquez... :P

 

Seriously, Hernandez was a top of the trash heap pick-up for the Sox, and now suddenly he nets Vasquez?

 

Amazing what happens when your team wins the world series.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I didn't know ESPN had the rights to Vasquez... :P

 

Seriously, Hernandez was a top of the trash heap pick-up for the Sox, and now suddenly he nets Vasquez?

 

Amazing what happens when your team wins the world series.

 

And adds a top prospect and a reliever to the trade.

[BigbadB]

The best team doesn't always or automatically win the World Series. The best 8 teams make the playoffs. Any one of those 8 could win a short series against one of the other teams.

 

The White Sox had a good team last year. They were NOT the best team in baseball.

 

And which team was better? The Sox had the second best record in baseball (only one game behind the Cards). They were four games better than the next three teams in the AL during the regular season (Yankees, Angles, and Red Sox). Two of the three teams they easily beat in the playoffs losing one of eight games. They then swept the World Series. To me that's a pretty convincing argument that they were the best team.

 

The White Sox had a much softer schedule than some of those teams. If you don't see that, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

What teams were better? The Yankees, Boston and the Cardinals were all better teams than the White Sox as much as I hate to admit it. Of course, I don't really take any joy in saying the White Sox were good either. :D

[Priorknowledge]

To answer CICT's question from earlier, year in and year out Walt Jocketty has done what he needs to do to help the Cards win and I think he's the best GM in all of baseball. With a payroll barely any larger than the White Sox.

 

You lost me right there. The Cardinals had 92 million to play around with. The White Sox had 75. 17 million isn't an insignificant figure.

[RationalSoxFan]

The best team doesn't always or automatically win the World Series. The best 8 teams make the playoffs. Any one of those 8 could win a short series against one of the other teams.

 

The White Sox had a good team last year. They were NOT the best team in baseball.

 

And which team was better? The Sox had the second best record in baseball (only one game behind the Cards). They were four games better than the next three teams in the AL during the regular season (Yankees, Angles, and Red Sox). Two of the three teams they easily beat in the playoffs losing one of eight games. They then swept the World Series. To me that's a pretty convincing argument that they were the best team.

 

The White Sox had a much softer schedule than some of those teams. If you don't see that, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

What teams were better? The Yankees, Boston and the Cardinals were all better teams than the White Sox as much as I hate to admit it. Of course, I don't really take any joy in saying the White Sox were good either. :D

Are you serious? The Yankees had a better team based on what? Their lack of a CF, or pitching staff? Boston had arguably the worst bullpen in baseball, and they were swept by the White Sox. The Cardinals were great, but we'll never know how they would've fared in the playoffs because of all the injuries.

[BigbadB]

Are you serious? The Yankees had a better team based on what? Their lack of a CF, or pitching staff? Boston had arguably the worst bullpen in baseball, and they were swept by the White Sox. The Cardinals were great, but we'll never know how they would've fared in the playoffs because of all the injuries.

 

Team. I don't have to define the lack of a CF or pitching staff. I said better "team". The Yankees had A-Rod, Sheffield, Matsui, Giambi, Posada, Jeter, Randy Johnson, Mike Mussina, Mariano Rivera, etc...

 

Overall, the Yankees had a better team than the White Sox. Sorry to burst your bubble. I could do this for each of the teams I said were better, but I'm not going to waste my time.

 

I gave the White Sox credit for a good season and having a good team. Why can't you be happy with that? I'm not going to change my mind.

 

And just for the sake of argument, how many people here would have predicted that the White Sox would have a better team ERA than either the Yankees or Boston prior to the start of last season?

 

I sure wouldn't. And I woudn't predict them to do it again, either.

[YearofDaCubs]

Are you serious? The Yankees had a better team based on what? Their lack of a CF, or pitching staff? Boston had arguably the worst bullpen in baseball, and they were swept by the White Sox. The Cardinals were great, but we'll never know how they would've fared in the playoffs because of all the injuries.

 

Team. I don't have to define the lack of a CF or pitching staff. I said better "team". The Yankees had A-Rod, Sheffield, Matsui, Giambi, Posada, Jeter, Randy Johnson, Mike Mussina, Mariano Rivera, etc...

 

Overall, the Yankees had a better team than the White Sox. Sorry to burst your bubble. I could do this for each of the teams I said were better, but I'm not going to waste my time.

 

I gave the White Sox credit for a good season and having a good team. Why can't you be happy with that? I'm not going to change my mind.

 

And just for the sake of argument, how many people here would have predicted that the White Sox would have a better team ERA than either the Yankees or Boston prior to the start of last season?

 

I sure wouldn't. And I woudn't predict them to do it again, either.

So we are looking at individual players to assess how good they are instead of looking at the entire team? Interesting concept.

[brfahey]

Look at their pitching staff last year. Politte, Hermanson, and Cotts were average to mediocre relievers and they all had unbelievable years. Garcia and Buehrle are very good starters who had great years even by their standards. Garland had the year of his life, and Contreras outproduced his career norms. That's 119 games worth of innings of pitching that ranged from slightly better to monumentally better than expected. Certainly Williams deserves credit for getting pitchers like Garcia and Buehrle, and I suppose you could give him credit for taking gambles on Hermanson and Contreras(Jenks was a very good, low risk pickup). But when every single one outproduces what they've proven capable of, some by an obscene amount, I'm more willing to contribute that to good fortune than Williams masterminding some scheme where he knows all his in-house options are about to have career years and picking up several others that do as well. And make no mistake, this pitching above predicted levels is why they made the playoffs(once you're in the playoffs it's a free for all) and why they won as many games as they did.

 

I am so happy to write this post because at long last I agree, 100%, with every word you wrote. If all of those guys repeat those performances it would be a miracle, and I think you only get one of those in a generation. Now they have acquired Vazquez and everybody expects him to be lights out. I am not so sure. The White Sox and Williams are the flavor of the month for the media, so every move is gold. Why do I get the feeling that if the Cubs had just acquired a guy with Vazquez's numbers who makes what he makes and giving up a good prospect and two major leaguers in the process the media would not be as supportive.

[BigbadB]

So we are looking at individual players to assess how good they are instead of looking at the entire team? Interesting concept.

 

Am I sensing sarcasm? I did stress "team".

[Jon]

Jon,

Do you really believe there is any way to judge a GM other than his team's record? I could making an argument on sample size, ie one season could be a fluke, but the GM is paid to put together a team to win. Therefore wins are the judgement criteria. I could see normalizing for payroll but long-term, wins are what GMs are paid to create. I honestly don't see any basis for claiming GMs don't influence won-lost record. Definitely this should be measured over a long period of time, but I think Goony has made some great points regarding KW's track record.

A systematic quantitative way of judging and ranking GMs? Probably not. And I'm not really concerned about having one. As I said, I think if you can follow the moves, you can form a judgement for yourself and look at a GM independently of other GMs. But I also don't see how a win-loss record is any more accurate. And I never claimed they don't have influence. I said they don't control results. Big difference.

 

I'm not going to say it's the same, but it's almost like judging a starting pitcher based on wins and losses. Sure they have a big influence in the game, but enough to use records to evaluate them? Why use records if you can evaluate each move?

[abuck1220]

 

And just for the sake of argument, how many people here would have predicted that the White Sox would have a better team ERA than either the Yankees or Boston prior to the start of last season?

 

I sure wouldn't. And I woudn't predict them to do it again, either.

 

so just because you didn't think they'd be good, the fact that they were means it was luck? i don't get what you're saying.

 

i'm really surprised by all the white sox hate here. i don't know how anyone can deny that kw has done better than hendry over the past few years. kw is working w/ a lower payroll, an armpit of a stadium that they can't fill, and a rookie manager. hendry has a huge payroll, one of the most beloved stadiums filled w/ fans, and supposedly one of the best managers in baseball. yet the white sox won the WS and the cubs finished in 4th place. come on...things are looking pretty good for the white sox right now, and the last two years of hendry has been nothing short of a big fat F.

 

and to everybody clamoring about how the sox were lucky...does everyone remember what type of hitter dlee was before he flirted w/ .400 and the triple crown? or what kind of hitter barrett was before he became the best offensive catcher in the nl? or what type of pitcher dempster was before he became one of the best closers in baseball last season? how about murton hitting .320 straight from AA? ramirez going from flop to stud?