If you have trouble making trades with anyone, I think it generally points to your player evaluations being way off.

And I don't mean Bowden or Beane asking for ridiculous packages as a starting point. Some GM's will do mindbogglingly stupid things when under stress, or blinded by their prejudices. But, both those guys know how to back off the initial offer and get a deal done, if the opposing GM doesn't feel like being stupid.

I get the sense that the ChiSox just don't have a good idea of how good their players are and what players are worth in the market.

Just this offseason, they've totally misread their place in the success cycle and signed two absurd contracts for RP's.

What are they asking for in return for Crede? Has anything leaked?

I didn't RTFA, but the headline reminds me of the trading block in my fantasy league, where people routinely peddle bad contracts no one else wants. If you're going to be bad this year, and if you're still looking for a 3B you are going to be bad, it's very sensible to be bad without paying Crede $5.1M after an injury and in his walk year, unless Kenny pays all of his salary. And even then, how good a player would you surrender for a year of Crede while your team sucks -- a decent reliever maybe? I mean if I'm the Dodgers I think I'm better with Abreu/Hu/Ghost of Nomar at 3B for a few months than with Crede, at this point.

Just this offseason, they've totally misread their place in the success cycle

They don't have a choice. The Chicago market simply does not permit rebuilding efforts. Whenever they rebuild in an obvious way it costs them at least four million tickets sold.

As for player evaluation being way off and their place in the success cycle, they did win the World Series in 2005 with a team that was almost universally -- and wrongly -- evaluated as hopelessly poor before the season. Maybe, just maybe it's time for y'all to accept that Kenny Williams actually knows what he's doing.

Further, aside from Jenks, the 2007 White Sox had a historically awful bullpen, once of the three or four worst *ever*. Generally speaking, you don't improve by ignoring a historically awful segment of your team. Sometimes you have to risk money to do it. Even if Linebrink and Dotel are below average, they're still a huge improvement.

I don't think they see the Indians and Tigers as being the juggernauts they're being made out to be - and they might be right. The last thing they would want to have happen is to forgo a chance to contend and start to rebuild before they absolutely have to. For all of Beane's successes it's interesting that his teams have never put A's fans in the seats.

For all of Beane's successes it's interesting that his teams have never put A's fans in the seats.

Or won anything, for that matter.

If you think about the 2005 White Sox, they won without rebuilding. If anything, conventional wisdom says when you dump a Carlos Lee and let a Magglio Ordonez walk and pick up an A. J. Pierzynski and an El Duque, you're floundering, not rebuilding. But it worked that one time. Williams doesn't run a baseball team along the lines of Sabermetric Optimality, but his teams have been decently competitive every year but one and transcendent once despite middle-of-the-pack payrolls and a farm system from Hell. At some point we all have to give the man the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the hostile media environment in Chicago that clearly gives the Cubs the benefit of every doubt and the White Sox the backs of their hands.

What are they asking for in return for Crede? Has anything leaked?

This note was posted on Rotoworld about a week ago:

The Chicago Tribune notes that the White Sox are upset that the Giants' various offers for Crede have included the likes of Scott Williamson, Randy Messenger and Dave Roberts, while San Francisco has balked at Chicago's asking price of a top prospect and a young reliever.

Isn't LaRoche only out until May? I don't really think the Dodgers need to grab a replacement for him.

If you think about the 2005 White Sox, they won without rebuilding. If anything, conventional wisdom says when you dump a Carlos Lee and let a Magglio Ordonez walk and pick up an A. J. Pierzynski and an El Duque, you're floundering, not rebuilding. But it worked that one time. Williams doesn't run a baseball team along the lines of Sabermetric Optimality, but his teams have been decently competitive every year but one and transcendent once despite middle-of-the-pack payrolls and a farm system from Hell. At some point we all have to give the man the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the hostile media environment in Chicago that clearly gives the Cubs the benefit of every doubt and the White Sox the backs of their hands.

Excellent post.

If things go bad this year they have Vazquez, Jenks, and Buehrle who are affordable enough (paying part of Buehrle's deal) for teams even like the Brewers, Rays, and Reds to bid for if they are in contention. They won't have to take 25 cents on the dollar in terms of talent from the Yankees or Red Sox to get rid of a bad contract.

I don't know, it seems like signing Uribe for $4.5 million in November and then being unable to find anyone willing to take the contract off your hands in March is not a turn of events that one can defend Williams on.

They don't have a choice. The Chicago market simply does not permit rebuilding efforts. Whenever they rebuild in an obvious way it costs them at least four million tickets sold.

They have negative one million fans come to the games? That's a lot of refunds.

They have negative one million fans come to the games? That's a lot of refunds.

That's Chicago Tough™.

In Kenny Williams 7 years as GM, the A's have won more games than the White Sox in 6 of the 7 years (including the A's 'failure' year last year). The White Sox have averaged 85-77 and the A's have averaged 93-69. The White Sox have made the playoffs once, the A's four times. The White Sox have had a higher payroll every year (the White Sox recently have fielded well above average payrolls).

To argue that Beane's teams haven't won anything is ludicrous. They certainly have won things (their division three times compared to the White Sox one) and they've also increased their attendance significantly in the process.

I don't think signing Uribe @$4.5M is all that big of a mistake, nothing to lose sleep over. Anyway, reports are they pulled him off waivers when a deal couldn't be agreed to so at its very worst it's something less than a $4.5M mistake.

I don't think signing Uribe @$4.5M is all that big of a mistake, nothing to lose sleep over. Anyway, reports are they pulled him off waivers when a deal couldn't be agreed to so at its very worst it's something less than a $4.5M mistake.

How do you fgiure? He spent $4.5 million four months ago on a player he now doesn't want. Seems like wasted money to me.

Voros, don't bother. Billy Beane haters are beyond redemption at this point. I think they go to bed at night muttering Billy Beane's name into their pillow. Or, in the case of BL, they dream of giant green tarpaulins. (Why they don't spend more time worrying about their own teams, I don't quite understand. We A's fan, while critical of particular Beane transactions, are a pretty satisfied bunch overall. If we don't worry, why should Brave fans or Cubs fans or Royals fans etc. give a shite.) My only regret since Billy's been gm is the three dumbest baserunning gaffes I have ever seen. If those three idiocies don't happen, the A's have series wins over the Yanks and Red Sox and all the haters would be forced to keep their heads safely enscsonced up their arses. Probably they should leave them up their anyway.

More importantly, Tuesday morning it's for real! For the 28th year in a row, I predict the A's will win a hundred games and take the World Series in a sweep. Hey, I'm one for 27 in this prediction. That ain't too bad.

How do you fgiure? He spent $4.5 million four months ago on a player he now doesn't want. Seems like wasted money to me.

It's $4.5M. Far from a disaster.

How do you fgiure? He spent $4.5 million four months ago on a player he now doesn't want. Seems like wasted money to me.

Well, decisions do have to be made at the time that they are available. This might not be the case here, but it's not completely foolish if this was the scenario:
1. You think Uribe is actually decent, and worth a bit more than 4.5 mil, so you sign him.
2. Later you get a shot at someone better, and it's worth getting them and cutting Uribe loose to improve the team.

Now, it's possible--likely--that most people thought that Killiams was wrong on both assessments here, but the argument that it's always bad to sign a player and then cut them or take .25 on the dollar is not correct.

If you think about the 2005 White Sox, they won without rebuilding. If anything, conventional wisdom says when you dump a Carlos Lee and let a Magglio Ordonez walk and pick up an A. J. Pierzynski and an El Duque, you're floundering, not rebuilding. But it worked that one time. Williams doesn't run a baseball team along the lines of Sabermetric Optimality, but his teams have been decently competitive every year but one and transcendent once despite middle-of-the-pack payrolls and a farm system from Hell. At some point we all have to give the man the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the hostile media environment in Chicago that clearly gives the Cubs the benefit of every doubt and the White Sox the backs of their hands.

The 2005 White Sox won b/c they got extremely lucky with the health of their rotation, and they outplayed their Pythag by 8 games.

Their payroll has been above average, and in the top 10 the last few years, as it should be for a large market team.

The "farm system from Hell" is Williams fault, he's been GM for 7 years.

I don't think he's a complete incompetent, probably lower middle of the pack for GM's. I do like Swisher and Quentin, they could be good acquisitions.

The Uribe thing is a farce. $4.5 M is a big deal if you just throw it away. That's 3-4 really nice Latin American signings. Or enough money to go over slot and get a Porcello type 1st rounder. Likewise, Dotel and Linebrink were another $9M, just this year.

This current team is setting up to be a disaster. They won 72 games last year, with a Pythag of 67 W, have a $100M+ payroll, a complete wasteland of a farm system, and yet think they're 1 player away. That's a pretty startling indictment of a GM.

The White Sox are also having trouble trading Crede for anything because at least two other teams (Tigers with Inge, Phillies with Helms) are also desperately trying to trade somewhat-valuable third basemen who have become superfluous. It's a buyer's market, and are there any buyers at all, except the Giants? And since they are going to be awful this season, they might as well wait and see if one of these guys has to actually be cut once the season starts.

Is it because he's black?

In Kenny Williams 7 years as GM, the A's have won more games than the White Sox in 6 of the 7 years (including the A's 'failure' year last year).

True. But find me an A's fan who wouldn't trade that 6-of-7 for the one trophy. Division titles leave an empty feeling when you get ejected from the playoffs.

Seriously, my point is Kenny Williams has taken far more real-time criticism than his results justify.

Also, my "four million tickets" remark is over several years. Put another way, if the White Sox try to rebuild, the Chicago newspapers call Jerry Reinsdorf a cheap *@$^$@ and the paying fan base buys it and basically shuns the stadium. The White Sox organization was penalized for the 1997 Alvarez trade at the box office for about seven years.

The White Sox are also having trouble trading Crede for anything because at least two other teams (Tigers with Inge, Phillies with Helms) are also desperately trying to trade somewhat-valuable third basemen who have become superfluous.

True. And Crede hasn't yet shown he's healthy, looking (at best) tentative at third base and not all that solid at the plate.

As for player evaluation being way off and their place in the success cycle, they did win the World Series in 2005 with a team that was almost universally -- and wrongly -- evaluated as hopelessly poor before the season.

Hopelessly poor? They'd finished second in their division, above .500, in 2004 (and above .500 and in second in 2003 and exactly .500 and in second in 2002). Most predictions, so far as I can tell, expected more of the same -- roughly a .500 record and roughly the second-best team in the division. I don't think yet another .500 season would have made the White Sox a poor team.

True. But find me an A's fan who wouldn't trade that 6-of-7 for the one trophy. Division titles leave an empty feeling when you get ejected from the playoffs.

Find me a A's fan who'd trade Beane for Williams.

I'm a Yankee fan. We were VERY lucky between 1996 and 2000. We've been somewhat unlucky since then.

You can't plan to win the World Series, not even with $200M budget. You plan to make the playoffs, and then hope.

I'd gladly trade $50M of that budget to have Beane or someone like him have unfettered control of the club. The process is what keeps you good, year after year. That's why Atlanta was so great for so long. A good process, completely different from the Oakland process.

You have to judge the process as well as the results.

But find me an A's fan who wouldn't trade that 6-of-7 for the one trophy.

*raises hand*

Well, that's not really a fair question since the A's had won in the period before Beane was GM.

There's not a Sox fan on the planet who would trade 2005 for 6 of 7 years in the playoffs. After all, it had been 88 years.

Kenny Williams is a terrible GM, and the majority of his moves have been bad. He had the good fortune in '05 for several of those bad moves to spend a few months looking good at the right time, and he picked up a fluke World Series win when the better teams stumbled in the postseason. That makes him lucky, not good.

The problem is that it assumes we know what will happen in the playoffs. Which team would you rather have if we assume the playoffs are mostly random...



Team B only looks likely to make the playoffs in 2005. Team A had a better team in 2001 and 2002, and had teams with decent to good chances of making the playoffs from 2003-2006.

Looking more specifically, neither the 2001 nor 2002 A's teams were even the best teams in the American League (at least by record, the 116-46 Mariners and 103-58 Yankees were better, respectively). In the 2005 White Sox's way were only a trio of 95-67 teams.

A World Series win is a World Series win. After the fact, sure, White Sox fans aren't going to throw back the win. And I do think that Kenny Williams is a pretty good GM. I'm not sure his team's World Series win convinces me that he's actually better than Beane, however.

For all of Beane's successes it's interesting that his teams have never put A's fans in the seats.

True, but that's usually a problem in Oakland. Since the A's came to town, they've been to the post-season 15 times, including 6 World Series appearances, and 4 titles. They've never led the league in attendance, and have only come in the top 3 a trio of times.

They don't have a choice. The Chicago market simply does not permit rebuilding efforts. Whenever they rebuild in an obvious way it costs them at least four million tickets sold.

They have negative one million fans come to the games? That's a lot of refunds.

No, it'll cost them tickets for more than one year.

The 2005 White Sox won b/c they got extremely lucky with the health of their rotation

Which starter did they get lucky on? Was it the guy who hasn't missed a scheduled start in his career? Did you mean the other guy who hasn't missed a scheduled start in his career? Did you mean the guy who has had at least 30 starts every year he's been an MLB starter? Or were you referring to the pitcher in the sixth year of a seven stretch where he where started over 30 games a year. Oh wait - I know - you meant the guy who actually missed 10 starts that year.

They didn't get extremely lucky with the health of their rotation. They got guys who were really good bets to stay healthy.

Also, I should note, the White Sox have done a very good job in recent years taking care of conditioning and health-related issues. They had back-to-back years with the fewest number of games lost to the DL.

he picked up a fluke World Series win when the better teams stumbled in the postseason.

Who were these better teams that stumbled? It can't be the 95-win team they beat, or the other 95-win team they beat. Did you mean the 95-win team they didn't play? I guess you meant the NL. Well, I hope you don't mean the Padres. The Braves won one more game than HOuston (with the same pythag record). So I guess you meant St Louis. Given that the Sox went 11-1 that post-season - one of the best marks since the rise of the DS - I think we have to figure they were playing the best ball of any team in October.

They didn't get extremely lucky with the health of their rotation. They got guys who were really good bets to stay healthy.

I stand corrected. They 2005 White Sox won b/c they got extremely lucky with the effectiveness of their rotation. Their top 4 starters all exceeded their career averages by a fair bit. Although, some of this is probably health related. Health is not just missing starts, it's nagging injuries that reduce performance.

A World Series win is a World Series win. After the fact, sure, White Sox fans aren't going to throw back the win. And I do think that Kenny Williams is a pretty good GM. I'm not sure his team's World Series win convinces me that he's actually better than Beane, however.

I haven't seen too many Sox fans try to argue this. I certainly wouldn't. The closest I've gotten is to argue that in some ways Williams and Beane are very similar because a) it's true and b) it drives these BEANE 4 POPE !$#$#% WILLIAMS IS A DUMBASS! folks crazy.

Beane is a better GM. Williams is an above average GM. IIRC, both are brilliant men who dropped out of top programs to play pro-ball.

I have to say, the idea that the 2005 White Sox weren't a good team is pretty mystifying to me. That club had pretty much everything - good starting pitching, a good bullpen, a couple of big boys who could whack it out of the park, and really good defense both up the middle and in the corners. And that team was superbly managed and coached as well - Don Cooper probably squeezed the ketchup bottle a little hard on some of those pitchers, it's true, but flags fly forever and he and Ozzie were smart enough to keep the gas pedal pressed down just hard enough that it didn't hurt them in '05, even if it did in '06.

The only mark against the '05 team was that they didn't get on base a whole lot, and a lot of that was that they didn't have Frank Thomas available most of the year, because he was hurt.

Kenny Williams is a terrible GM, and the majority of his moves have been bad.

The majority of any GM's moves will be bad. The majority of every GM's moves should be bad - if you're not making bad moves, your risk profile is out of whack with what it needs to be in order for a team to profit long-term from the moves that do work.

A substantial majority of major league baseball players are below average, and most player moves will not work when they are tried. Most of the time, when you assign a guy a new role or acquire a new player through a signing or a trade or the draft, it will not work out, the player will be a failure in the role or a failure overall. 90% of the players you draft will prove themselves incapable of playing major league baseball; 95% will be unable to make a meaningful contribution to a winning team. That's if you're lucky. Most of your first-round picks will end up, at some point, being players that the fans describe as "human garbage". Most of your free agent pickups won't make it out of the third week of camp. Most of your big-ticket free agents won't ever be worth the money that you sign them for, and most of your hyped young prospects will be disappointing busts.

That is the reality of major league baseball. A reality that, when you take on the job of being a major league general manager, smacks BASTARD YOU in the face with the power of the Mailed Fist of God, day after day after day. Playing major league baseball is one of the hardest things to do in the world, and the vast, vast majority of those who are chosen to try their hand at it (by the most rigorous and exacting winnowing process not only in sport, but perhaps in the entire world of human endeavour), fail ridiculously. As the general manager, you are the one responsible for putting (even parading) every one of those failures before the public - and you must display confidence in every one of those moves. And not only is it a duty you have, it is a duty of sacred importance to the fans - because you need to fight for every single inch, take every chance, and leave no stone unturned in your pursuit of a better baseball team. If you fail to do this, you will find yourself twiddling your thumbs as your competitors pass you by, stopping only to eat your lunch and kick sand in your face.

If Kenny Williams is making a lot of bad moves, then God bless him and God bless the White Sox fans, because at least some of those moves are going to work, and when they do work they leave the White Sox not only a better team today, but a better team this season and next season and the season after that. Like the .300 hitter, it's only by ####### up 70% of the time that a team's success is possible - because anyone in baseball who tells you he can predict the future is the commonest sort of fool. All you can do is try.

None of which is to say that Kenny Williams is a good GM. I'm still not convinced of that. But I do know that it's damnably hard for us to figure that out, and the more glib somebody is about answering that question, the greater the chance is that he'll be wrong.

I have to say, the idea that the 2005 White Sox weren't a good team is pretty mystifying to me. That club had pretty much everything - good starting pitching, a good bullpen

They had the illusion of those things. Then Contreras, Garland, Hermanson, Cotts and Politte went back to being Contreras, Garland, Hermanson, Cotts and Politte.

The funny thing is that Williams built a better team in 2006, and he'll never get any credit for it because the massive regression from basically every holdover but Dye overwhelmed the additions.

I stand corrected. They 2005 White Sox won b/c they got extremely lucky with the effectiveness of their rotation. Their top 4 starters all exceeded their career averages by a fair bit.

The 2005 Sox had terrific team defense, much better than the 2004 team- or the 2006-07 teams either for that matter.
They also exceeded their pythag by 8 games- 2003/04/06 never were off by more than 2
last year they exceeded it by 5... not that it mattered

I just don't see the 2008 Sox as contenders, I can't see them within 10 games of either the Tigers or the Indians- then in the East you have the Redsox and Yankees

I just don't see them within 10 games of the wildcard

The Tigers just extended Cabrera. 2009-2016, 153.3 million.

That's a steal for the Tigers. An absolute steal.

Re: Cabrera

The 153.3 number is obviously puffery - it includes the 11.3 he was due to earn this season anyway. Really it's 7/142. And even that is kinda phoney because one of the years is an arb year. If we price the arb year at $16m, then basically the Tigers are buying 6 free agent years (through Cabrera's age-32 season) at $21m per.

I agree with Russlan = looks to be a steal. Tigers are going to be a dynasty.

The 153.3 number is obviously puffery - it includes the 11.3 he was due to earn this season anyway. Really it's 7/142. And even that is kinda phoney because one of the years is an arb year. If we price the arb year at $16m, then basically the Tigers are buying 6 free agent years (through Cabrera's age-32 season) at $21m per.


I don't think that's right but I agree the number is confusing. It's either an 8 year/152 million dollar extension (9/163.3 in total) or it's a 7/142 million dollar extension (8y/153.3 in total). The ESPN article says he is going to average 19 a million from 2009-2016 (which makes it the first scenario 2009-2016 is 8 years).

Either way, it's a great deal for the Tigers. Congratulations, Tiger Fans.

They had the illusion of those things. Then Contreras, Garland, Hermanson, Cotts and Politte went back to being Contreras, Garland, Hermanson, Cotts and Politte.

Contreras wasn't really a fluke, though. When he came to the US and first came up with the Yanks, the scouts all raved about his stuff. The fact that he couldn't get it together in New York was a main argument used against Mel Stottlemyre's continued hold on the Bronx pitching coach job. His numbers were only a little worse in 2006 -- the difference can easily be ascribed to age.

I wouldn't call Garland's season an issue either. It was his best season, but: he considerably reduced his walks, decreased his homers allowed, and played in front of a good defense. He kept the latter two down, but by the next year Rowand was gone, and some of the other defenders declined.

Garland has a lot of talent, actually. For some reason, every time he plays the Blue Jays, he absolutely kills them, so I've seen a lot of good Jon Garland performances over the years. He's very tidy. And Hermanson is a fine pitcher - maybe not 2005 fine, true, but until he hurt his back he was always very good, a much better starter than your typical reliever conversion.

When evaluating Williams, I think it's probably helpful to decide what to do with his first year or two at the helm. He did not do well, I think by any reasonable measure.

He's been better since, but this turn of events with Uribe is difficult to see as anything but a screw up. I suppose you can argue how big of a screwup it is, but it was an easily avoidable mistake (letting Uribe walk does not cripple the team regardless of future acquisitions).

But find me an A's fan who wouldn't trade that 6-of-7 for the one trophy.

*raises hand*

In hindsight? It seems to me the reason you play is to win it all. That's kind of the object. I will take Chicago for that reason alone. I'd rather have had Oakland's *opportunities* and they were obviously much better over the past seven years. But a World Series win is a big freakin' deal. I know; I'm a Cubs fan.

Anyway, I'm a huge Billy Beane fan. He's the man. But I do think Kenny Williams is a good GM that is far too maligned on Primer. He won the big prize whether anybody likes it or not.

When he came to the US and first came up with the Yanks, the scouts all raved about his stuff.

It worked for Hideki Irabu, didn't it?