I guess since love is a subjective trait conferred by the fan of his own free will, there's no way to judge. To an outsider, it is strange though

Bringing a city their first championship in 87 years will engender some goodwill.

Suppan is going to sign with the Brewers for 4y/42m with an option for the 5th.

That's not a good contract, especially for a team with limited resources like the Brewers.

Well, if Young does turn into a good player, I assume I then get to invoke the "darn luck!" excuse (sometimes known as the "Uggla Excuse" or the "Hanley Excuse"). That's not reserved just for "Moneyball" and/or young, white, Ivy League-educated GMs, is it?

You're free to invoke whatever you wish. It seems to me that KW should have valued his CF prospect a little more highly back then, especially when you consider that there may be a CF hole on the White Sox roster right now.

Bringing a city their first championship in 87 years will engender some goodwill.

Fair enough. But it would seem to be more this accomplished feat rather than his trading acumen which would warrant this unconditional love.

But it would seem to be more this accomplished feat rather than his trading acumen which would warrant this unconditional love.

Well, a lot of his recent moves have worked out very well, many times in defiance of conventional wisdom.

He had some bad early moves (Ray Durham for nothing; Keith Foulke for an injured reliever; two young arms for Todd Ritchie), but he's had a nice winning streak and seems to have earned the benefit of the doubt.

I definitely have my doubts about this move, but for now I'll trust that Ken Williams knows more about the players involved than I do.

"But it would seem to be more this accomplished feat rather than his trading acumen which would warrant this unconditional love."

Where is this expression of unconditional love that you're talking about? All I ask is that Williams be judged the way any GM should be judged -- on how the players he acquires and trades ACTUALLY perform, and on ACTUAL wins and losses. The White Sox have 200 wins over the last two seasons; ergo, I think Kenny Williams has been a very good GM over the last two season. Is that too subjective? Is there a deeper or more insightful way of thinking about this?

Fair enough. But it would seem to be more this accomplished feat rather than his trading acumen which would warrant this unconditional love.

Well, his trading acument -- or maybe we should say reshaping acumen, since he's also done some excellent work with the free agent market -- led to that World Series.

Right now, he seems to be in the middle of resource re-allocation. After calling for his head during the Lee-for-Viz-and-Pods deal, I've learned to wait until Opening Day to judge the final product.

All I ask is that Williams be judged the way any GM should be judged -- on how the players he acquires and trades ACTUALLY perform, and on ACTUAL wins and losses.

Those are two different things. If we're talking about the Vasquez trade, then Vasquez didn't performed very well in 2006. And while we can't judge Young's major league performance yet, he looks for all the world like a prospect whom one should not give up. You (apparently) differ from that judgment, which is of course fine. I think it was a bad deal, and one that will very likely figure negatively into the balance of Williams' performance; we shall see. The White Sox overall W/L record doesn't ultimately provide an answer to a critique of every single move he makes.

Obviously, on balance, Williams has done an outstanding job. People can still think the Vasquez trade was a misstep, can't they? And they're entitled to an opinion on this deal, too.

Suppan is going to sign with the Brewers for 4y/42m with an option for the 5th.

That's not a good contract, especially for a team with limited resources like the Brewers.

I don't know. I think that clinches the Brewers as the favorites in the NL Central. You put a playoff contender in Milwaukee and you might be surprised how much revenue they can find. Ask Harveys about how the Braves did in attendance in the late 1950s.

That's a fair assessment, Sam, but I still find comments like this:

I've looked closely - it's still questionable. But I guess since love is a subjective trait conferred by the fan of his own free will, there's no way to judge. To an outsider, it is strange though - in a why do housewives love Regis Philbin kind of way. [ducks]

to be quite ignorant. I realize you weren't the one who said it, but you find it strange that we like a GM who has brought us Sox fans consecutive 90 win seasons for the first time since the 60s? You find it strange that we like a GM who has showed visible improvement since early missteps like Durham/Adkins and Ritchie/Wells? You find it strange that we cling to a GM who was absolutely ripped apart here for moves like trading the golden boy Jeremy Reed for Freddy Garcia or signing Jermaine Dye, and, to lesser extents, trading Rowand/Gonzalez for Thome and resigning Konerko?

I'll give you the Vazquez trade. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. And this trade is certainly open to debate, too. As JRE described it, it's another ballsy move by KW.

Then again, I'm not terribly surprised. Some people rated KW 4th in the AL Central as far as GMs go, and I believe one or two people actually put him behind Dayton Moore. It's quite obvious some just want to see the guy fail.

you find it strange that we like a GM who has brought us Sox fans consecutive 90 win seasons for the first time since the 60s? You find it strange that we like a GM who has showed visible improvement since early missteps like Durham/Adkins and Ritchie/Wells? You find it strange that we cling to a GM who was absolutely ripped apart here for moves like trading the golden boy Jeremy Reed for Freddy Garcia or signing Jermaine Dye, and, to lesser extents, trading Rowand/Gonzalez for Thome and resigning Konerko?

I don't find the White Sox fans' high regard for Williams strange at all. If anything, I might find your collective defensiveness about him a bit odd, and wonder why you don't just laugh at his critics more. But then, I remember how we Mets' fans get our backs up when certain people say stuff about Omar Minaya, and so then I don't find even that strange.

But, in fairness, the AL Central has some pretty darned good GMs. I don't think Williams is 4th best, but it would be no profound insult to be 4th in that company. But there's no way he's behind the guy who signed Gil Meche, that's for damn sure.

I realize you weren't the one who said it, but you find it strange that we like a GM who has brought us Sox fans consecutive 90 win seasons for the first time since the 60s?

I assume that you've followed the thread.

Here are how the comments led to mine:

[re: Young/Vazquez trade]

Doesn't this deal still look bad? I guess it's still early, and I haven't looked closely at the matter, but all the Kenny Williams love still strikes me as questionable.

I think if you look closely (or even not so closely) at what Williams did the last two offseasons, the "Kenny Williams love" won't strike you as questionable at all.

My reply:

I've looked closely - it's still questionable. But I guess since love is a subjective trait conferred by the fan of his own free will, there's no way to judge. To an outsider, it is strange though - in a why do housewives love Regis Philbin kind of way. [ducks]

Notice how this is a discussion on the *degree* of favor. The term used specifically is love. Upstream of this thread, another fan commented with the term "genius." To me, those are terms that are way too strong for someone who has managed to assemble a team ranging from 81-99 wins over the last 6 years, more on the low 80s side.

I wouldn't even give the "outstanding" grade that Sam has given. Williams has done a very good job, and has been successful - with a championship to the resume. I won't rule out that he deserves even more praise, but I'll wait for that.

So back to the main point: I've looked at KW's track record. I still think the love is questionable (as an outsider).

- BTW, I will be off internet in 10 minutes, so I apologize in advance if I can't reply to any posts hereafter.

But then, I remember how we Mets' fans get our backs up when certain people say stuff about Omar Minaya, and so then I don't find even that strange.

I'm a defensive person, Sam, so I apologize if at any time I come off as 'over-defensive', which I probably come off as when this specific topic is brought up.

To me, those are terms that are way too strong for someone who has managed to assemble a team ranging from 81-99 wins over the last 6 years, more on the low 80s side.

Fair enough.

I personally would never use the word 'genius' to describe Kenny, but then again, does any GM deserve that label?

So back to the main point: I've looked at KW's track record. I still think the love is questionable (as an outsider).

And I still find that strange. I don't see how our high regard of Kenny Williams is any different than, say, Mets fans' collective 'love' (love may be a little strong of a word, but you undertand what I'm getting at) of Omar Minaya.

You're free to invoke whatever you wish. It seems to me that KW should have valued his CF prospect a little more highly back then, especially when you consider that there may be a CF hole on the White Sox roster right now.

I'm the first to admit that I dislike the White Sox, but this strikes me as more than a little unfair. A year ago, 2 of their top 3 prospects were CFs, and Brian Anderson was the more advanced of the 2. BA listed Chris Young as the #23 prospect in baseball and had Anderson at #51, which, judging from the rest of the list, provided the expectation of at least an adequate major leaguer. After a subpar year from Anderson, to say that the Young trade was foolish because the White Sox have a CF hole is revisionist at best. Young looks better now after dramatically cutting his K rate (almost 30% in 2004-5, 18% last year), and obviously Anderson looks worse, but how can this year's performance impact KW's thought process a year ago?

Also, with all the talk of Young's future, it seems that no one is acknowledging that Vazquez's 2007 performance will weigh heavily on the final evaluation of the trade. He did not meet expectations last season, but he was not a 1 year rental. If his ERA next year matches his peripherals this year, he may well have a major positive impact for a contending team. If his ERA is once again around 5, any career performance from Young exceeding that of Anderson would seemingly put this trade in the loss column for KW.

Thank you for the classy reply, Keith.

Stacking teams and GMs are what makes baseball arguments fun, and I do my poking partly to see how others can argue the other stance. Consider it a fun bar argument.

And I still find that strange. I don't see how our high regard of Kenny Williams is any different than, say, Mets fans' collective 'love' (love may be a little strong of a word, but you undertand what I'm getting at) of Omar Minaya.

I actually don't think that Minaya is exceptional as a trader. He tends to break out even in his trades. And he's only been on for two years, so love would be way premature. Relief that the era of incompetency is over is probably a more apt description.

I'm the first to admit that I dislike the White Sox, but this strikes me as more than a little unfair. A year ago, 2 of their top 3 prospects were CFs, and Brian Anderson was the more advanced of the 2. BA listed Chris Young as the #23 prospect in baseball and had Anderson at #51, which, judging from the rest of the list, provided the expectation of at least an adequate major leaguer. After a subpar year from Anderson, to say that the Young trade was foolish because the White Sox have a CF hole is revisionist at best. Young looks better now after dramatically cutting his K rate (almost 30% in 2004-5, 18% last year), and obviously Anderson looks worse, but how can this year's performance impact KW's thought process a year ago?

Why is it unfair? I don't think you should trade a strong CF prospect for a starting pitcher unless you can be sure that it's a front-line starter (of course there are many other factors to consider, but in general). Also, Anderson was the inferior of the 2 young CFers. Many people at the time thought the KW had overpaid for a starter who has a track record, but had struggled recently. Even though the CF hole wasn't as apparent a year ago, many people pointed out that it would be foolish to trade Young so soon.

He tends to break out even in his trades.

Is that so? I think Minaya hasn't pulled any "f-ing A" trades just yet, but I think he does better than breaking even.

Winners

Delgado for Jacobs, Petit, Psomas
LoDuca for Gaby Hernandez
Oliver Perez, Roberto Hernandez for X. Nady
Kris Benson for John Maine, Jorge Julio
Jorge Julio for Orlando Hernandez
Dirty for Seo
Dave Williams for cash
Mota for cash

Losers

Mike Stanton for the Run Fairy
Cameron for Nady (though this is not such a big deal)
Keppinger for Gotay

Eh

Vance Wilson for Anderson Hernandez
Eyechart for Blade
Ishii for Phillips
Colyer for Ginter
Adams for Gonzalez

Too early to say

Adkins/Jonson for Bell/Ring
Vargas/Bostick for Owens/Lindstrom
Burgos for Bannister

Someone might argue that the Delgado/LoDuca deals weren't that great because of the salaries involved, but those two guys were crucial last year. Similarly, some might argue that the Camy-Nady deal wasn't such a loser because of the difference in salaries, but I would have loved to get more for Cameron. The Benson-Maine was a heist. Seo for Sanchez was very critized around here, but I'm pretty sure we would all do that one over and over again. Acquiring El Duque for Julio was pretty good too. Mota/Williams came here for cash, and both could be contributors next year. And as you can tell, I'm very optimistic about O. Perez. Overall, Minaya ranks pretty well in the trade market. Aside from Cameron, I don't think he's traded anything that valuable.

You forgot Green for McLane.

is the only player on the 40 man roster right now who can play good defense in CF and RF

Since when was ?? a good defensive player?

Then again, I'm not terribly surprised. Some people rated KW 4th in the AL Central as far as GMs go, and I believe one or two people actually put him behind Dayton Moore. It's quite obvious some just want to see the guy fail.

Rating Kenny Williams 4th in the Central has nothing to do with wanting to see the guy fail. It's more than people are enamored with Ryan, Shapiro, and Dombrowski. Those are three of the best GMs in baseball - to be rated behind them isn't an insult.

Not if. When.

Not when. If. See Jeremy Reed, circa 2004.

Hop in the Wayback Machine and set coordinates for July 27, 2004, when Williams was reamed for trading those two megastars Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo in order to get Freddy Garcia. Posters around here are to prospects like grizzled old sportswriters are to proven veterans.

Look, the real question is whether Jeremy Reed is the next Tony Gwynn or whether he rises to be the next Rickey Henderson.

Well, if Young does turn into a good player, I assume I then get to invoke the "darn luck!" excuse (sometimes known as the "Uggla Excuse" or the "Hanley Excuse"). That's not reserved just for "Moneyball" and/or young, white, Ivy League-educated GMs, is it?

Keep chucking those stones at that hornet's nest.

Yes, absolutely you get to. But why so bitter?

This is nonsense. Trades are evaluated based on their outcomes, not the philosophies behind them.

It's more than people are enamored with Ryan, Shapiro, and Dombrowski. Those are three of the best GMs in baseball - to be rated behind them isn't an insult.

I could see Williams behind Ryan and Dombrowski, but Shapiro needs to build a playoff team before I'll agree he's better than Williams.

I could see Williams behind Ryan and Dombrowski, but Shapiro needs to build a playoff team before I'll agree he's better than Williams.

Ok. I have Shapiro rated as pretty easily #1 in this group, so I'll disagree there, but to each his own.

Either way, the point is that rating Williams behind those three isn't indicative to some sort of anti-Williams bias - but rather the result of the fact that there's a reasonable case to be made that he deserves to be rated there on his merit.

This is nonsense. Trades are evaluated based on their outcomes, not the philosophies behind them.

I think it is a mistake to believe that this is the only way to evaluate trades. A results oriented approach, while not without some validity, I suspect is going to lead you to what essentially amounts to a small sample size issue for judging GMs. The number of trades a GM makes in his career is in the low double digits generally, and in spite of how sound the reasoning behind a trade may be, it may fail to work out. Another way to put this is: How comfortable do you feel judging a player based on 20 plate appearances?

I have Shapiro rated as pretty easily #1 in this group, so I'll disagree there, but to each his own.

Seriously? And not even talking about Williams .... Dombrowski has had success in more than one place, while Ryan has shown results with a very difficult hand.

Since when was ?? a good defensive player?

I don't know what ?? means, but Eric Byrnes appears to have always been a pretty good defensive player

Oh yeah, the Green trade was a clear loser. That's probably Minaya's worst move as a Mets' GM. Let's hope Shawn plays his way into Randolph's doghouse next year.

Seriously? And not even talking about Williams .... Dombrowski has had success in more than one place, while Ryan has shown results with a very difficult hand.

Ryan also had shown failure for a pretty lengthy period of time before he showed success - it's not like he was just installed as GM in 2001 or something. I believe he's the longest serving GM in baseball other than Schuerholz in fact.

Dombrowski built a good team this year, but he also hasn't won me over completely either, with moves like the Sheffield trade being front and center for why. I feel pretty comfortable putting Shapiro ahead of Dombrowski.

I tend to shy away from results oriented analysis of GMs. While being results oriented makes reaching conclusions a lot easier, I think it's simply ignoring too much of the luck involved in the game as well, so I'm not keen on it.

What does the claim that a GM is "better" than another mean? Better at what? Is there a one-dimensional scale of GM value?

Ryan also had shown failure for a pretty lengthy period of time before he showed success - it's not like he was just installed as GM in 2001 or something.

So you're conveniently overlooking Shapiro's failures? Like 2006? Ryan came into a much tougher situation. If Shapiro is regularly winning division titles by 2010, then I would consider him to have done as well.

Dombrowski built a good team this year, but he also hasn't won me over completely either

He has a pretty good track record. The Indians' 2005 season, from here, looks like a fluke compared to their other recent seasons. This year is critical, and the division has gotten a lot tougher.

I don't think Shapiro is terrible, I just don't see anything that tells me that he's much better than the other guys. It's a fine group as you said, and the different levels of experience are hard to balance. I just can't see a reason to think that highly of Shapiro right now.

So you're conveniently overlooking Shapiro's failures? Like 2006? Ryan came into a much tougher situation. If Shapiro is regularly winning division titles by 2010, then I would consider him to have done as well.

I don't consider the failure of the 2006 Indians to be a serious mark against Shapiro. The Indians outscored their opponents by 88 runs in 2006 - under .500 or not, that was a pretty seriously unlucky team.

In any case, I'm not judging these guys based on how successful their teams were - there's simply too much luck in the game for that. If Shapiro is regularly winning division titles by 2010, that doesn't do anything to change that.

I just can't see a reason to think that highly of Shapiro right now.

He's made a lot of sound moves, and has built a pretty good team - I'm less interested in the end results of these things than I am in the reasoning behind them.

What does the claim that a GM is "better" than another mean? Better at what? Is there a one-dimensional scale of GM value?

Knowing nothing about the circumstances of a team, which GM do I think would do the best job running it. That's the one-dimensional scale I'm thinking of at least.

Delgado for Jacobs, Petit, Psomas

That's a loser, not a winner.

I don't consider the failure of the 2006 Indians to be a serious mark against Shapiro. The Indians outscored their opponents by 88 runs in 2006 - under .500 or not, that was a pretty seriously unlucky team.

Who hired Eric Wedge?

That's probably Minaya's worst move as a Mets' GM. Let's hope Shawn plays his way into Randolph's doghouse next year.

How bad of a move was it really though? For all his warts, Green did hit .313/.405/.406 in the playoffs which is pretty good considering the Mets' options at the time. He also hit .257/.325/.442 during the season in his short stint for the Mets. Green's a below average player because of his defense but at about 5m dollars next season, he's hardly an albatross and he did reasonably well during the playoffs.

Who hired Eric Wedge?

You think Eric Wedge was responsible for a 12 game differential?

Hey, you're the guy touting Shapiro. Why should I move him up my list?

That's a loser, not a winner.

Explain please. Petit had great minor league numbers prior to 2006 but he's always going to be to dinger prone, IMO, to be anything more than a 3-4 starter, and his peripherals and performance took a big hit in 2006. Jacobs is a useful piece but he's not in the same league as Delgado. The Mets needed a slugger like Delgado desprately and he was exactly what the Mets hoped for. Right now, I think this is a winner for the Mets. If Delgado falls off a cliff or Petit proves to be a #2 starter, I'll be wrong but I don't think either will happen.

Delgado for Jacobs, Petit, Psomas

That's a loser, not a winner.

That's ridiculous. Delgado was the final puzzle in Minaya's reconstruction of the Mets. He carried the team on his back during the early part of the year, he allowed Carlos Beltran to relax and do what he does best, and he filled in a hole that was there ever since John Olerud left as a free agent. If Minaya acquired a player of Delgado's caliber at a position of need for three B prospects this offseason, everybody here would be lauding Omar as the executive of the year.

everybody here would be lauding Omar as the executive of the year.

Except bibigon...

Hey, you're the guy touting Shapiro. Why should I move him up my list?

I'm not touting Shapiro - I'm explaining that viewing Shapiro as being a better GM than Kenny isn't proof of an anti-Kenny bias.

Explain please.

Oi, I didn't realize Jacobs' stats trailed so far behind Delgado's by the end of the year. I remember them being neck-and-neck for most of the season -- maybe a false memory. But I'd still put it as a push, considering salaries and future production.

You think Eric Wedge was responsible for a 12 game differential?

No; the crappy bullpen probably had more to do with it (that's okay, he's fixed that! Joe Borowski and Roberto Hernandez, w00t!).

Or Aaron Boone's 354 ABs predicated by Shapiro's deal to Boone.

Or thinking Jason Michaels could cut it as an everyday left-fielder.

Or thinking Jason Johnson could cut it as a starter.

But I forgot, what I listed above doesn't matter, because results don't matter. What matters is what you deem to be 'good' moves, right?

I'm less interested in the end results of these things than I am in the reasoning behind them.

Oh, I absolutely love this. The "reasoning behind them". That's funny...

But I forgot, what I listed above doesn't matter, because results don't matter. What matters is what you deem to be 'good' moves, right?

With the possible exception of the crappy bullpen, none of that would result in a 12 game differential, as that's all already taken into account in the runs scored/runs allowed.

Another way to put this is: How comfortable do you feel judging a player based on 20 plate appearances?

Much more comfortable than judging that player by, say, his religion. The results matter...the philosophy doesn't.

I have Shapiro rated as pretty easily #1 in this group, so I'll disagree there, but to each his own.

...

I'm not touting Shapiro

FWIW, Williams can surive dealing McCarthy if Omar Minaya can survive dealing Cliff Lee, Brandon Phillips and Grady Sizemore.

A results oriented approach, while not without some validity, I suspect is going to lead you to what essentially amounts to a small sample size issue for judging GMs. The number of trades a GM makes in his career is in the low double digits generally, and in spite of how sound the reasoning behind a trade may be, it may fail to work out.

That's as may be, but at some point the philosophy has to produce something on the field, or it's simply mental masturbation.

You can talk about a process-oriented approach all you want, but unless you have something close to universal agreement as to what constitutes an ideal process, you're ultimately going to have to fall back on the results to justify your process, especially if you're going to turn around and start comparing it to other teams with different processes.

I'm not a "count the rings" kind of fan, but Shapiro has had one winning season (and zero playoff appearances) out of five since he's been GM. The team has gone from being consistently one of the best in terms of attendance to a below-average draw (and yes, the moves that Shapiro made are at least partly responsible for this). In the same time frame, Terry Ryan put a four-time division winner on the field in Minnesota, Dave Dombrowski turned around a moribund franchise in Detroit, and Kenny Williams won a World Series.

I'm willing to give Shapiro the benefit of the doubt, but at some point you're going to have to do better than "I like the moves he's made" to justify the idea that Mark Shapiro is a top-5 GM.