PDA

View Full Version : Sean Gallagher shuts down the Angels


TDog
07-12-2008, 12:55 AM
I don't think this is good news for Sox fans, but Sean Gallagher shut down the A's tonight, giving up just two hits and two runs in seven innings. The two hits he gave up in second inning shouldn't have been hits. One was a ground ball fielded by Ellis, who couldn't throw the runner out. The other, by the next hitter, was a triple that Brown looked like he was going to catch. The A's, meanwhile tattooed Jon Garland for one run in the second and six runs in the third.

There were some nice defensive plays behind Gallagher, particularly by Murton, but Gallagher pitched very well to pick up his first win.

The bad news is that the A's appear to have another solid young starting pitcher. It's just one game, but the Angles had more success against Harden in his penultimate start for the A's.

Considering that this was the first time the Angels had faced this no-name 22-year-old pitcher making his American League debut, maybe A's fans should tone down their enthusiasm.

Still, Gallagher looked as good tonight as I was afraid he was going to look.

DumpJerry
07-12-2008, 09:45 AM
How is this bad news for the Sox? We have only three games against the A's this season and, at most, he can start only one of them.

We killed him earlier this year, so no worries here.

cws05champ
07-12-2008, 09:48 AM
This is good news for the Flubsessed so they can rail Hendry if 2 or 3 of the players the A's got turn out to be gold.

southside rocks
07-12-2008, 09:49 AM
Yeah, I don't get why this is bad for Sox fans?

Gallagher is a very promising young pitcher. I hope he does well. The A's gave up a couple of decent pitchers in that deal, although I am hearing a lot of concerns voiced about Harden's ability to stay healthy.

Garland, OTOH, has been pretty much as usual: one great start, one okay start, a couple of lousy ones. He's not showing the Garland of 2005, so I wonder if that was a career year for him -- but it's probably too soon to tell. At any rate, it will be interesting to see what kind of contract he gets as he goes into free agency at the end of this season. I don't miss him on the Sox nearly as much as I thought I would, thanks to Danks and Floyd.

South Side Irish
07-12-2008, 10:39 AM
I would say it's only "bad news" for Sox fans because Oakland always seems to a) have our number, and give us hell; b) come up with great young pitchers, seemingly from every draft and trade they make.

I don't think this would be as bad as, say, Cleveland picking up guys like this. Oakland? More of a thorn in our side.

Hitmen77
07-12-2008, 11:06 AM
How is this bad news for the Sox? We have only three games against the A's this season and, at most, he can start only one of them.

We killed him earlier this year, so no worries here.

Agreed. These days, we play just about as many games vs. the Cubs in a season as we do the A's. Why is it so bad for us if the A's take a good player from the Cubs?

The only time it would be a real problem is if the A's and Sox happened to be battling it out for the wild card spot or if we meet in the playoffs....but then again, we're probably more likely to meet the Cubs in the post season this year than the A's.

The Cubs losing a good player isn't just relevant for the flubsessed. I know people like to think we live in a vacuum and that what the Cubs do doesn't affect the Sox. In reality, a Cubs championship would set the Sox back big time in trying to win back market share in Chicago. Also, if the A's win a championship, I honestly don't see A's fans running around everwhere in Chicago shoving their title down Sox fans' throats.

TDog
07-12-2008, 01:21 PM
Since the end of the 1967 season, the A's have been crushing White Sox dreams. A good A's team is always bad news for the White Sox, and the Sox still have a trip to Oakland in August. The fact that the White Sox beat Gallagher the first time they faced him (as they do more than half the time with pitchers they have never faced before, despite the consternation when they lose to such pitchers) does not mean the Sox have his number.

chaotic8512
07-12-2008, 02:16 PM
The fact that the White Sox beat Gallagher the first time they faced him (as they do more than half the time with pitchers they have never faced before, despite the consternation when they lose to such pitchers) does not mean the Sox have his number.

Nor does it mean that Gallagher is going to be that effective in the majority of his starts. Not exactly a result I'd like to see for an A's team that always gives us hell, but I'll wait for, at the very least, 5 or 6 more starts to go by before worrying about him being a perennial Sox-killer.

TDog
07-12-2008, 02:36 PM
Nor does it mean that Gallagher is going to be that effective in the majority of his starts. Not exactly a result I'd like to see for an A's team that always gives us hell, but I'll wait for, at the very least, 5 or 6 more starts to go by before worrying about him being a perennial Sox-killer.

The fact that he came up so big against the Angels, who have been scoring a bunch of runs and who the A's are chasing, is what scares me. The only hits he gave up could be blamed on poor defense. And the Angels knocked Harden around a little bit, scoring three off of him in a five-inning no-decision effort before Harden lost to the Sox.

I really don't want to see the A's make the postseason. But with their scrappy young offense upgrading most of the plodding station-to-station all-or-nothing hitters on the disabled list, I'm afraid they could win their division.

hawkjt
07-12-2008, 02:50 PM
I am not that surprised at Gallaghers success last nite. He has a very good arm. I would rather face him than Duscherer or Harden,however, when we go west yet again to face our nemisis A's. Probably before Blanton and smith also. At least we have seen him.

As for Jon Garland...his numbers are right in the Jose and Javy region..ok,but not great. Considering the Angels are probably the best team in the AL , I would have thought he would do a bit better.