PDA

View Full Version : Yankees offer Lowe 4yr 66 million deal


ndgt10
12-10-2008, 12:19 PM
"Yankees Discussing Deal With Lowe
By Tim Dierkes [December 10 at 8:56am CST]
According to SI.com's Jon Heyman, the Yankees were discussing a four-year, $66MM deal with Derek Lowe late Tuesday night. Via MetsBlog, Heyman said on WFAN this morning that the Yanks are closing in."

What an offseason this could be for the Yankees. Sabathia, Lowe, and possibly Burnett? Wow, I'm jealous.

WhiteSoxFan84
12-10-2008, 12:32 PM
I highly doubt they'll get Lowe and Burnett. I wouldn't be surprised if they missed out on both. But if they landed just Sabathia and one of the other two, they'd be in amazing shape, just look: Sabathia/Wang/Burnett or Lowe/Joba/Kennedy or Hughes? Wow.

Sargeant79
12-10-2008, 12:49 PM
What an offseason this could be for the Yankees. Sabathia, Lowe, and possibly Burnett? Wow, I'm jealous.

I'm not. I like all of those pitchers but not at that cost. There's a good chance that all 3 of those contracts could come back to bite the Yankees in the ass. Those are exactly the type of financial decisions that would handicap a team like the Sox for years.

voodoochile
12-10-2008, 12:54 PM
I'm not. I like all of those pitchers but not at that cost. There's a good chance that all 3 of those contracts could come back to bite the Yankees in the ass. Those are exactly the type of financial decisions that would handicap a team like the Sox for years.

They can afford it and they are looking to make a big splash this year. Besides it's been 7 years since they won it all. I am sure they want to end that skid.

Jurr
12-10-2008, 12:57 PM
We saw this same crap in '04 or '05, when the Yankees picked up Randy Johnson and Carl Pavano. Everybody crowned them as WS champs. Didn't work out, did it?

CC looked dynamite for the Brewers, and he made a lot of money in the process. Lowe has been hanging out in the NL for a while.

Come back over, fellas...let's see how that works out for you!

kittle42
12-10-2008, 12:58 PM
They can afford it and they are looking to make a big splash this year. Besides it's been 7 years since they won it all. I am sure they want to end that skid.

I wish I could say this about my team (well, I know it has been less than 7 years, but you know what I'm saying).

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 01:10 PM
I'm not. I like all of those pitchers but not at that cost. There's a good chance that all 3 of those contracts could come back to bite the Yankees in the ass. Those are exactly the type of financial decisions that would handicap a team like the Sox for years.



This is the 2nd thread I hear this mentioned.

PLEASE STOP IT!!!!

Money is never going to be an issue for the Yankees, ever.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 01:13 PM
We saw this same crap in '04 or '05, when the Yankees picked up Randy Johnson and Carl Pavano. Everybody crowned them as WS champs. Didn't work out, did it?

CC looked dynamite for the Brewers, and he made a lot of money in the process. Lowe has been hanging out in the NL for a while.

Come back over, fellas...let's see how that works out for you!


You do have to realize that those kinds of moves do put them closer to winning a championship than not.

kittle42
12-10-2008, 01:17 PM
This is the 2nd thread I hear this mentioned.

PLEASE STOP IT!!!!

Money is never going to be an issue for the Yankees, ever.

You do have to realize that those kinds of moves do put them closer to winning a championship than not.

Correct and correct. Generally (generally, I said), spending more = putting yourself in a better position to win. There is no one the Yankees have lost out on in recent years, in my admittedly terrible memory, because they were overly worried about money already on the books. Yes, they've had terrible signings, but no, they have not had to go into rebuilding mode fully at all in the last decade and a half.

That's a nice luxury.

OmarLittle
12-10-2008, 01:24 PM
16.5 million for each of Derek Lowes age 36-39 seasons is ugly.

champagne030
12-10-2008, 01:35 PM
16.5 million for each of Derek Lowes age 36-39 seasons is ugly.

Maybe, but paying Alfonso Soriano $106M+ for the next 6 years is much worse.

kittle42
12-10-2008, 01:37 PM
Maybe, but paying Alfonso Soriano $106M+ for the next 6 years is much worse.

And if a team like the Cubs or Yankees can afford it, might as well sign the worst contracts ever just to get the players. They're obviously not hurting because of it.

kjhanson
12-10-2008, 01:43 PM
For those who are jealous of the Yankees, let me remind you of the following:

Derek Lowe's ERA in his last two A.L. seasons:
4.47
5.42

Derek Lowe's ERA away from the best pitcher's park in baseball (last 4 years):
3.48
4.13
4.19
4.42

And then I'll remind you that Buehrle, Danks and Floyd combined make less than Lowe would with the Yankees.

champagne030
12-10-2008, 01:46 PM
And if a team like the Cubs or Yankees can afford it, might as well sign the worst contracts ever just to get the players. They're obviously not hurting because of it.

I don't know if I completely agree. It's one thing to overpay for an elite player (CC/Manny) and it's another to overpay for Soriano. They'd dump him now if they could, but he handcuffs the team because they could sign better players cheaper, but they cannot get rid of him.

PorkChopExpress
12-10-2008, 01:57 PM
We saw this same crap in '04 or '05, when the Yankees picked up Randy Johnson and Carl Pavano. Everybody crowned them as WS champs. Didn't work out, did it?

I was thinking the saem thing. I believe they also bought Jamie Wright that year for a fairly hefty sum.

Thome25
12-10-2008, 01:59 PM
Correct and correct. Generally (generally, I said), spending more = putting yourself in a better position to win. There is no one the Yankees have lost out on in recent years, in my admittedly terrible memory, because they were overly worried about money already on the books. Yes, they've had terrible signings, but no, they have not had to go into rebuilding mode fully at all in the last decade and a half.

That's a nice luxury.

Tell that to the teams to win the World Series since 2002. Most have been mid and low payroll teams. There has only been two teams with GIGANTIC payrolls to go to the World Series since 2002. (Yankees and Red Sox.) Of those two teams only ONE has actually won it all. (Red Sox twice.) Even the opponents of the temas that have won the WS since 2002 have mostly been mid and low payroll teams.

The economics of baseball have changed since the new millenium. You can't buy a championship anymore and this change has proven that spending more doesn't give you a better shot.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 02:12 PM
Tell that to the teams to win the World Series since 2002. Most have been mid and low payroll teams. There has only been two teams with GIGANTIC payrolls to go to the World Series since 2002. (Yankees and Red Sox.) Of those two teams only ONE has actually won it all. (Red Sox twice.) Even the opponents of the temas that have won the WS since 2002 have mostly been mid and low payroll teams.

The economics of baseball have changed since the new millenium. You can't buy a championship anymore and this change has proven that spending more doesn't give you a better shot.


Spending money gets you into the playoffs more times than not. I would say probably as much as 75% of the time. Being part of the final 8 standing has a much better chance of getting into the World Series than the other 22 teams who do not get in.

Thome25
12-10-2008, 02:15 PM
Spending money gets you into the playoffs more times than not. I would say probably as much as 75% of the time. Being part of the final 8 standing has a much better chance of getting into the World Series than the other 22 teams who do not get in.

What use is just getting to the playoffs when you've spent mega-bucks? It's World Series or bust for teams like the Yankees. And the ones who have won the World Series more often than not in the new millenium were teams who spent money wisely and built good fundamentally sound clubs. NOT teams who buy players like they're shopping at Kmart like the Yankees do.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 02:27 PM
What use is just getting to the playoffs when you've spent mega-bucks? It's World Series or bust for teams like the Yankees. And the ones who have won the World Series more often than not in the new millenium were teams who spent money wisely and built good fundamentally sound clubs. NOT teams who buy players like they're shopping at Kmart like the Yankees do.


Don't you have to get there first in order to get to a WS?

I will say it right now, TB will not make the play-offs ever again ahead of the Yankees or Boston. Those two teams will buy a play-off birth from here on forward.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"

kittle42
12-10-2008, 02:29 PM
Don't you have to get there first in order to get to a WS?

Exactly. I have heard "the playoffs are a crapshoot" so much here the past few seasons (not that I disagree), that the significance of making the playoffs should be recognized. Baseball has the fewest playoff teams. Getting there is a huge step 1, and it is a step 1 that is made much easier and more common with the spending of more money on players.

Thome25
12-10-2008, 02:31 PM
Don't you have to get there first in order to get to a WS?

I will say it right now, TB will not make the play-offs ever again ahead of the Yankees or Boston. Those two teams will buy a play-off birth from here on forward.

"Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me"

I think the Rays are going to have a good young club that will contend for years to come. That's just my opinion and I could be wrong though.:tongue:

In the 2000's the Red Sox and especially the Yankees have been burned more often than not by spending wildly. They didn't piece together teams that were that great.

They can try to spend the Rays into oblivion all they want. The Rays and other clubs have already proven that their way (by building a fiscally responsible, fundamentally sound club.) is the better and wiser way to go. Look at all the other WS winners in the 2000's as well.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 02:34 PM
I think the Rays are going to have a good young club that will contend for years to come. That's just my opinion and I could be wrong though.:tongue:

In the 2000's the Red Sox and especially the Yankees have been burned more often than not by spending wildly. They didn't piece together teams that were that great.

They can try to spend the Rays into oblivion all they want. The Rays and other clubs have already proven that their way (by building a fiscally responsible, fundamentally sound club.) is the better and wiser way to go. Look at all the other WS winners in the 2000's as well.


Right, like making the play-offs once every 10-15 years?

Give me a break.

pythons007
12-10-2008, 02:35 PM
For those who are jealous of the Yankees, let me remind you of the following:

Derek Lowe's ERA in his last two A.L. seasons:
4.47
5.42

Derek Lowe's ERA away from the best pitcher's park in baseball (last 4 years):
3.48
4.13
4.19
4.42

And then I'll remind you that Buehrle, Danks and Floyd combined make less than Lowe would with the Yankees.

Those numbers away aren't awful. To have an ERA around 4 is good for this era of baseball.

I will agree with you going back to the A.L. is going to hurt him.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 02:39 PM
Exactly. I have heard "the playoffs are a crapshoot" so much here the past few seasons (not that I disagree), that the significance of making the playoffs should be recognized. Baseball has the fewest playoff teams. Getting there is a huge step 1, and it is a step 1 that is made much easier and more common with the spending of more money on players.


I would like to see a stat to show us the last 15 years of spending in baseball compared making the playoffs.

I can almost gurantee that if you are part of the top 1/3 (10 teams) of spending teams in baseball(10/30), 60-70% of those teams are making the post season each season.

Thome25
12-10-2008, 02:39 PM
Right, like making the play-offs once every 10-15 years?

Give me a break.

I'm not just talking about the Rays. Look at the last 7 World Series winners and their payroll rank:

2002 Angels--$62 million (rank 15th)
2003 Marlins-- $50 milllion (rank 25th)
2004 Red Sawx--$125 million (rank 2nd)
2005 White Sox--$75 million (rank 13th)
2006 St. Louis Cardinals--$89 million (rank 11th)
2007 Red Sawx--$143 million (rank 2nd)
2008 Phillies--$98 million (rank 12th

You mean to tell me that one year of the Rays is going to wake the Yankees up and is suddenly going to make this trend change?

If the Yankees haven't realized by looking at this....they never will. It's been 7 years. And no amount of spending will change it either.

Heck look at the World Series losers since 2002:

2002 Giants--$78 million (rank 10th)
2003 Yankees--$153 million (rank 1st)
2004 Cardinals--$75 million (rank 11th)
2005 Astros--$77 milllion (rank 12th)
2006 Tigers--$82 million (rank 14th)
2007 Rockies--$54 million (rank 25th)
2008 Rays--$44 million (rank 29th)


Not exactly breaking the bank are they? As a matter of fact most of these payrolls fall right into the area the White Sox are looking to be. KW gets it. Cashman and the Steinbrenners don't.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 02:45 PM
I'm not just talking about the Rays. Look at the last 7 World Series winners and their payroll rank:

2002 Angels--$62 million (rank 15th)
2003 Marlins-- $50 milllion (rank 25th)
2004 Red Sawx--$125 million (rank 2nd)
2005 White Sox--$75 million (rank 13th)
2006 St. Louis Cardinals--$89 million (rank 11th)
2007 Red Sawx--$143 million (rank 2nd)
2008 Phillies--$98 million (rank 12th

You mean to tell me that one year of the Rays is going to wake the Yankees up and is suddenly going to make this trend change?

If the Yankees haven't realized by looking at this....they never will. And no amount of spending will change it either.


Why just go back 7 years to prove your arguement?

Take it back 15 years and show me what you come up with. Or take it from post strike era forward.

Also, so the Rays did not make your list there. So their season is a failure, right? If you are going by the ultimate goal which is to win a World Series, then TB is a huge failure, Minn and Oak right there behind them (2 teams WSI wants our Whie Sox to be )

Thome25
12-10-2008, 02:47 PM
Why just go back 7 years to prove your arguement?

Take it back 15 years and show me what you come up with. Or take it from post strike era forward.

Also, so the Rays did not make your list there. So their season is a failure, right? If you are going by the ultimate goal which is to win a World Series, then TB is a huge failure, Minn and Oak right there behind them (2 teams WSI wants our Whie Sox to be )

No the Rays were a rousing success. The Yankees with a $250mm payroll are and will continue to be a titanic failure. Look at the 2nd part of the post you quoted.

It's hasn't even been a matter of getting to the World Series for the Yankees because they haven't even been able to do that with their enormous bankroll.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 02:50 PM
Not exactly breaking the bank are they? As a matter of fact most of these payrolls fall right into the area the White Sox are looking to be. KW gets it. Cashman and the Steinbrenners don't.


:rolling:

I love KW, but please. If KW was GM for the Red Sox or Yankees and he was given an open check book (unlike what JR gives him here), he wouldn't be in Vegas right now looking to acquire prospects in every deal.

hi im skot
12-10-2008, 02:53 PM
Also, so the Rays did not make your list there. So their season is a failure, right? If you are going by the ultimate goal which is to win a World Series, then TB is a huge failure, Minn and Oak right there behind them (2 teams WSI wants our Whie Sox to be )

I, for one, have no desire to be either one of those teams.

doublem23
12-10-2008, 02:55 PM
Also, so the Rays did not make your list there. So their season is a failure, right? If you are going by the ultimate goal which is to win a World Series, then TB is a huge failure, Minn and Oak right there behind them (2 teams WSI wants our Whie Sox to be )

Can't we just be who the White Sox are? Why do we have to be the Yankees or A's before people get happy?

Thome25
12-10-2008, 02:56 PM
:rolling:

I love KW, but please. If KW was GM for the Red Sox or Yankees and he was given an open check book (unlike what JR gives him here), he wouldn't be in Vegas right now looking to acquire prospects in every deal.

My point was that most of the teams that have won (and even got to.) the World Series haven't had to break the bank on payroll. Hell, most of them didn't even have the highest paid player in MLB on their team.

If any GM had the ability to spend $300mm on player payroll you bet they would. But, most teams can't and have been smarter with their money. As a result, mid and smaller payroll teams have won the World Series more often than the Yankees because they've been so wise in building their teams.

The MLB economic landscape isn't like Kmart anymore. You can't just go pick something off the shelf and expect a winner anymore. When was the last time a team with the highest paid player in baseball won the World Series? It's been a while.

I don't want the White Sox to operate like the Rays, Marlins, Pirates, or A's.....but, I don't want them to be like the Yankees and Red Sox, or even Cubs and spend wildly either.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 02:59 PM
My point was that most of the team that have one (and even got to.) the World Series haven't had to break the bank on payroll. Hell, most of them didn't even have the highest paid player on their team.

If any GM had the ability to spend $300mm on player payroll you bet they would. But, most team can't and have been smarter with their money. As a result mid and smaller payroll teams have won the Worls Series more often than the Yankees because they've been so wise in building their teams.

The MLB economic landscape isn't like Kmart anymore. You can't just go pick something off the shelf and expect a winner anymore. When was the last time a team with the highest paid plaer in baseball won the Worlsd Series? It's been a while.


So we are going to agree to disagree.

Bottom line:

You have the Yankee model or you have the Twins model.

I tend to think the Yankee model has a much better chance of doing big things in a season than the Twins model.

Thome25
12-10-2008, 03:06 PM
So we are going to agree to disagree.

Bottom line:

You have the Yankee model or you have the Twins model.

I tend to think the Yankee model has a much better chance of doing big things in a season than the Twins model.


Saying that you have the Yankees model or the Twins model is simplifying it too much. Your statement is too black and white. There's a grey area where teams like the 2002 Angels, 2003 Marlins, 2005 White Sox, 2006 Cardinals, and 2008 Phillies fall into.

It's not either back up the Brinks truck or cry poor anymore. The middle of the road teams are viable more often than not. And as of lately they've been more viable than the Yankees free-spending ways.

There's one thing I agree with.....let's agree to disagree.

Marqhead
12-10-2008, 03:08 PM
So we are going to agree to disagree.

Bottom line:

You have the Yankee model or you have the Twins model.

I tend to think the Yankee model has a much better chance of doing big things in a season than the Twins model.

I think a mixture of models is much better than either extreme.

Big spending is great for immediate impact, but if/when those players breakdown there need to be replacements usually in the form of reliable backups or talented minor leaguers brought up from within the system.

Large scale frugality isn't the solution either. It allows teams to produce great prospects by building from within, but the amount of time they spend with the team is usually short, making the window for success very small.

In my opinion, a team that has an above average payroll that makes a smart FA splash every now and then, combined with lower cost role players and a minor league system stocked full of highly rated prospects is the best team.

The Yankes are great because they always get the big names, but they crash and burn when those players don't succeed.

The Twins are great because they build around homegrown players who come from within the system, and they have a great scouting and development system. They crash and burn when those players leave town for bigger money.

Me? I want the Sox to be somewhere in the middle.

doublem23
12-10-2008, 03:09 PM
So we are going to agree to disagree.

Bottom line:

You have the Yankee model or you have the Twins model.

I tend to think the Yankee model has a much better chance of doing big things in a season than the Twins model.

So, there are two extremes and nothing in between? Really, no one besides the Yankees have the financial strength to just throw around insane contracts every off-season, so let's please stop pretending like the Sox are just being cheap because they're not rushing out the door to sign Derek Lowe for $16.5 million/season.

Every team besides the Yankees has to do some building internally. Over the past few years, the Sox have shown the ability to do a few things well... Find good free agents for good prices and acquire promising young players from other teams. Way too early to tell, but is also looks like they've discovered how to draft effectively, as well.

I personally still think the Sox have a plan are and just in the process of executing it, and they've earned my trust for now.

khan
12-10-2008, 03:12 PM
I LOVE it when a team like the Yankees makes a stupid signing like Pavano or Jamey Wright, or NOW a 35-year old SP that sucked the last time he was in the AL.

I LOVE it when a team makes a stupid signing for an old piece of shyte. 4 YEARS for a 35 year old? Cashman takes stupid to a new level!

In the short term, it drives up the going market for SPs. However, the inevitable market correction has occurred previously, and will occur again in the future.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 03:20 PM
In the short term, it drives up the going market for SPs. However, the inevitable market correction has occurred previously, and will occur again in the future.

:rolleyes:

Keep dreming.

Same was said after the 2006 season and look where we are at.

If this recession / near depression cannot create this "market correction," nothing will.

cards press box
12-10-2008, 03:20 PM
I LOVE it when a team like the Yankees makes a stupid signing like Pavano or Jamey Wright, or NOW a 35-year old SP that sucked the last time he was in the AL.

I LOVE it when a team makes a stupid signing for an old piece of shyte. 4 YEARS for a 35 year old? Cashman takes stupid to a new level!

In the short term, it drives up the going market for SPs. However, the inevitable market correction has occurred previously, and will occur again in the future.

I agree that signing Lowe is a questionable move. Let me add another reason: if the Yankees sign Lowe, they probably do not re-sign Andy Pettitte who was probably better than Lowe last year. With Mussina's retirement (coming off a 20 win season), aren't the Yankees really spinning their wheels and making sure that they win the off season (for whatever that's worth).

khan
12-10-2008, 03:30 PM
:rolleyes:

Keep dreming.

Same was said after the 2006 season and look where we are at.

If this recession / near depression cannot create this "market correction," nothing will.
You do mean "dreaming," don't you? I don't know what "dreming" means.

Anyway, back in '03 - '04, there was such a market correction in terms of SP salaries. Or at least, the asking prices in trade declined, coupled with a slowing in the increases in SP salaries. KW knew this, and moved to acquire some of the pieces requisite for us to see the first WS in 88 years.

Hence, instead of having a 5th SP lose all season, [as in the 1st year of Ozzie's tenure] we had the joy of watch a 5th SP actually contribute.

Now, the market has inflated again, but inevitably, there have been, and will be corrections from time to time.

khan
12-10-2008, 03:35 PM
I agree that signing Lowe is a questionable move. Let me add another reason: if the Yankees sign Lowe, they probably do not re-sign Andy Pettitte who was probably better than Lowe last year. With Mussina's retirement (coming off a 20 win season), aren't the Yankees really spinning their wheels and making sure that they win the off season (for whatever that's worth).
Agreed. This is why the Yankees are a moronic bunch of polesmokers. Without daddy's money, Jr. Steinbrenner couldn't run a Burger king, let alone an MLB franchise.

FedEx227
12-10-2008, 03:38 PM
Funny. I really thought after this year they were going to rethink their approach and start building through their farm (ala 1996-2000), but I guess not, throw money at the problem and hope it goes away again.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 03:52 PM
You do mean "dreaming," don't you? I don't know what "dreming" means.



Grammar patrol .... I think you understood what I meant smart ass.

kittle42
12-10-2008, 04:14 PM
Grammar patrol .... I think you understood what I meant smart ass.

Sorry, after agreeing with you all thread - have to disagree here. "Understanding what you meant" is a poor excuse!

Of course, I just thought it was a typo.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 06:27 PM
Sorry, after agreeing with you all thread - have to disagree here. "Understanding what you meant" is a poor excuse!

Of course, I just thought it was a typo.


It's a message board. I type fast and refuse to use spell check.

munchman33
12-10-2008, 07:11 PM
I LOVE it when a team like the Yankees makes a stupid signing like Pavano or Jamey Wright, or NOW a 35-year old SP that sucked the last time he was in the AL.


Why are you picking on one season? The guy was as dominant as they come out of the pen, converted to a starter and threw almost 220 innings with a 2.58 era, threw over 200 hundred innings again the next year and then surprising had trouble the last year of his contract. No kidding.

That he rebounded to return to form says a lot about his makeup and physical conditioning. Keying in on one bad season in such a stellar career, the bulk of which was made in the better league, is pretty uncalled for. The guy doesn't have anything to prove, he's one of the games best.

guillensdisciple
12-10-2008, 08:01 PM
In regard to Cashman:


what an idiot! *kick* *kick*

I hope you guys know where that's from.

Domeshot17
12-10-2008, 09:06 PM
Every team besides the Yankees has to do some building internally. Over the past few years, the Sox have shown the ability to do a few things well... Find good free agents for good prices and acquire promising young players from other teams. Way too early to tell, but is also looks like they've discovered how to draft effectively, as well.

I personally still think the Sox have a plan are and just in the process of executing it, and they've earned my trust for now.

I don't know about the bolded part. We are just like our team, we either hit home runs or we strike out. Dye was a nice find coming off injury after injury, AJ was a nice find after being labeled a cancer. But then we relied heavily on guys like Erstad and projects like Terrero in 2007 that did not work out at all.

We do pretty well in picking up change of scenery youth, but we still struggle now and then. Danks was a nice find, but sometimes we put too much stock in other young guys we grab (like Sisco in the past) who don't pan out. Not every move works out well for anyone, but we seem to do pretty good here overall, just not GREAT sometimes.

In terms of the draft, I still have no faith. We refuse to spend any money in it, and we pass on premium talent because of agent or money to often. We got lucky this year, Gordon Beckham fell into out laps, it took no skill, it a coinflip between him and Smoak and either guy was a fantastic pick. I didn't love the draft after that. Danks is a great athlete but only a good ball player, we pissed away a very early pick on Kenny's son who is terrible, and we let some tough sign high school kids get away because we wouldn't pay up. I know I say it a lot but I just have this feeling we are going to regret Poreda over Porcello for a long, long, long time. We walked away with an easy sign hard throwing lefty with a developing but mediocre slider and an even worse change up, and Porcello right now is considered by some the best arm in the minor leagues. Until the Sox make the decision to stop drafting like the royals and pirates and being such cheap asses with the kids, we won't even have a top system, unless we get higher picks.

LoveYourSuit
12-10-2008, 09:15 PM
I don't know about the bolded part. We are just like our team, we either hit home runs or we strike out. Dye was a nice find coming off injury after injury, AJ was a nice find after being labeled a cancer. But then we relied heavily on guys like Erstad and projects like Terrero in 2007 that did not work out at all.

We do pretty well in picking up change of scenery youth, but we still struggle now and then. Danks was a nice find, but sometimes we put too much stock in other young guys we grab (like Sisco in the past) who don't pan out. Not every move works out well for anyone, but we seem to do pretty good here overall, just not GREAT sometimes.

In terms of the draft, I still have no faith. We refuse to spend any money in it, and we pass on premium talent because of agent or money to often. We got lucky this year, Gordon Beckham fell into out laps, it took no skill, it a coinflip between him and Smoak and either guy was a fantastic pick. I didn't love the draft after that. Danks is a great athlete but only a good ball player, we pissed away a very early pick on Kenny's son who is terrible, and we let some tough sign high school kids get away because we wouldn't pay up. I know I say it a lot but I just have this feeling we are going to regret Poreda over Porcello for a long, long, long time. We walked away with an easy sign hard throwing lefty with a developing but mediocre slider and an even worse change up, and Porcello right now is considered by some the best arm in the minor leagues. Until the Sox make the decision to stop drafting like the royals and pirates and being such cheap asses with the kids, we won't even have a top system, unless we get higher picks.

Good post.

It is hit or miss.

2007 was a big miss. 2008 was a big hit. 2009....... Law of averages not in our favor.

My thought process with the success we had last year with the youth was to go and spend this year to fill the remaining holes. This way you keep the momentum from last season.

guillensdisciple
12-10-2008, 09:24 PM
I don't know about the bolded part. We are just like our team, we either hit home runs or we strike out. Dye was a nice find coming off injury after injury, AJ was a nice find after being labeled a cancer. But then we relied heavily on guys like Erstad and projects like Terrero in 2007 that did not work out at all.

We do pretty well in picking up change of scenery youth, but we still struggle now and then. Danks was a nice find, but sometimes we put too much stock in other young guys we grab (like Sisco in the past) who don't pan out. Not every move works out well for anyone, but we seem to do pretty good here overall, just not GREAT sometimes.

In terms of the draft, I still have no faith. We refuse to spend any money in it, and we pass on premium talent because of agent or money to often. We got lucky this year, Gordon Beckham fell into out laps, it took no skill, it a coinflip between him and Smoak and either guy was a fantastic pick. I didn't love the draft after that. Danks is a great athlete but only a good ball player, we pissed away a very early pick on Kenny's son who is terrible, and we let some tough sign high school kids get away because we wouldn't pay up. I know I say it a lot but I just have this feeling we are going to regret Poreda over Porcello for a long, long, long time. We walked away with an easy sign hard throwing lefty with a developing but mediocre slider and an even worse change up, and Porcello right now is considered by some the best arm in the minor leagues. Until the Sox make the decision to stop drafting like the royals and pirates and being such cheap asses with the kids, we won't even have a top system, unless we get higher picks.

I am one of blind faith to the White Sox managerial powers. However, you make very interesting points that I had not thought about. Pending on how this year goes, I might begin to change my view on these things, maybe I am still giving them a pass because of the world series.... I should definitely stop that.

Domeshot17
12-10-2008, 09:57 PM
I am one of blind faith to the White Sox managerial powers. However, you make very interesting points that I had not thought about. Pending on how this year goes, I might begin to change my view on these things, maybe I am still giving them a pass because of the world series.... I should definitely stop that.

It isn't blind faith, not counting the draft, we aren't cheap, just economical. We aren't big spenders, we will NEVER land the big chip on the free agent market. We can never spend the dollar when we have 50 cents!!!

But the one nice thing about the diamond in the rough approach we alwayyyssss seem to take is when its just mud we expect it, and when its a diamond, or even just a decent piece of CZ, it is more then expected. No one expected much from Dye, and he has given us the same if not better then JD Drew for 1/2 the price. AJ was like, ok we need a catcher, and now he is one of the team cornerstones.

The problem with the approach is you never end up with the real GEM. Quentin was on pace, but we can only hope he gets back to there. The Wrist injury is known to take away power. With pitching, again, we do pretty well, but outside of Danks no one on our roster or in our minors even has a chance to really be an all star or finish in the top of Cy young voting in terms of pitching. Without a major trade, we don't have the chance to have that great 1-2-3 that won us the World Series.

Really, my feeling is just, we get the results we should. We talk about championships every year, but outside of 2005 and 2006, we have never had a GREAT team. 2004 maybe but the pitching was not there and when the injuries hit we had no chance. Since then Kenny has gone on this Diamond in the Rough obsession, and we will keep ending up with Good, scrappy, 85-92 win teams who may make the playoffs, but without picking up some real team leading talent, we will never be a balanced, very good, championship calibur team.

champagne030
12-10-2008, 10:23 PM
I don't know about the bolded part. We are just like our team, we either hit home runs or we strike out. Dye was a nice find coming off injury after injury, AJ was a nice find after being labeled a cancer. But then we relied heavily on guys like Erstad and projects like Terrero in 2007 that did not work out at all.

We do pretty well in picking up change of scenery youth, but we still struggle now and then. Danks was a nice find, but sometimes we put too much stock in other young guys we grab (like Sisco in the past) who don't pan out. Not every move works out well for anyone, but we seem to do pretty good here overall, just not GREAT sometimes.

In terms of the draft, I still have no faith. We refuse to spend any money in it, and we pass on premium talent because of agent or money to often. We got lucky this year, Gordon Beckham fell into out laps, it took no skill, it a coinflip between him and Smoak and either guy was a fantastic pick. I didn't love the draft after that. Danks is a great athlete but only a good ball player, we pissed away a very early pick on Kenny's son who is terrible, and we let some tough sign high school kids get away because we wouldn't pay up. I know I say it a lot but I just have this feeling we are going to regret Poreda over Porcello for a long, long, long time. We walked away with an easy sign hard throwing lefty with a developing but mediocre slider and an even worse change up, and Porcello right now is considered by some the best arm in the minor leagues. Until the Sox make the decision to stop drafting like the royals and pirates and being such cheap asses with the kids, we won't even have a top system, unless we get higher picks.

I agree with most of this except the the Royals have ponied up in the draft the past few years.

Porcello still chaps my ass especially when we go out and spend $11M, including a MLB contract, on a 19 year old kid. He's certainly not a higher touted prospect. I'm not bitching we signed Viciedo, but take that same philosophy into the draft.

35th and Shields
12-10-2008, 10:40 PM
It isn't blind faith, not counting the draft, we aren't cheap, just economical. We aren't big spenders, we will NEVER land the big chip on the free agent market. We can never spend the dollar when we have 50 cents!!!

But the one nice thing about the diamond in the rough approach we alwayyyssss seem to take is when its just mud we expect it, and when its a diamond, or even just a decent piece of CZ, it is more then expected. No one expected much from Dye, and he has given us the same if not better then JD Drew for 1/2 the price. AJ was like, ok we need a catcher, and now he is one of the team cornerstones.

The problem with the approach is you never end up with the real GEM. Quentin was on pace, but we can only hope he gets back to there. The Wrist injury is known to take away power. With pitching, again, we do pretty well, but outside of Danks no one on our roster or in our minors even has a chance to really be an all star or finish in the top of Cy young voting in terms of pitching. Without a major trade, we don't have the chance to have that great 1-2-3 that won us the World Series.

Really, my feeling is just, we get the results we should. We talk about championships every year, but outside of 2005 and 2006, we have never had a GREAT team. 2004 maybe but the pitching was not there and when the injuries hit we had no chance. Since then Kenny has gone on this Diamond in the Rough obsession, and we will keep ending up with Good, scrappy, 85-92 win teams who may make the playoffs, but without picking up some real team leading talent, we will never be a balanced, very good, championship calibur team.


I disagree. The reason the white sox won the world series with their 1,2,3,4 punch because of the KW does business. He acquired both Garcia and JC through trades, signed El Duque for a good value contract and I see no reason to doubt he can't get us another world series ring applying the same method. The only difference I see between now and then is that KW has MORE trading pieces then he's ever had before.

khan
12-11-2008, 12:04 PM
Why are you picking on one season?
Why are you?

The guy was as dominant as they come out of the pen, converted to a starter and threw almost 220 innings with a 2.58 era,
In 2002. You know, going on 7 years ago.

threw over 200 hundred innings again the next year
And had a 4.47 ERA in 2003. Not too different an ERA than Vazquez had in '08, mind you. You know, the guy you skewered for pitching over 200 innings for the overwhelming majority of his career?

and then surprising had trouble the last year of his contract. No kidding.
And had a 5.42 ERA as a starter in 2004. Which is why I maintain that Lowe sucked a horse's ass the last time he was in the big boy AL. But you glossed over all of this, and instead chose to focus on his good year that happened 7 years ago.

That he rebounded to return to form says a lot about his makeup and physical conditioning.
Him getting arrested for domestic battery, and then immediately violating the terms of his bond when he was in Seattle says a lot about him being a bad guy. Him being one of the few MLB players to publickly get caught cheating on his wife says a lot about his sense of judgement and his character. Him choosing Scott Boras as his agent says a lot about his greed.

But again, he "rebounded" in the NL.

Keying in on one bad season in such a stellar career,
And you keying on one good season, which is going on 7 years ago, in the big boy AL is even sillier.

The guy doesn't have anything to prove, he's one of the games best.
If this were indeed the case, a smart/wealthy MLB organization like the Sawks wouldn't have given him away for free. If this were the case, the Sawks would have locked him up instead of not even offering arbitration.

Besides, he's 36, not 26. And while he might have an "OK" '09, he'll most likely be bad or injured beyond '09. Assuming he can keep himself from off the field distractions, as he is wont to do from time to time.

munchman33
12-11-2008, 01:48 PM
Why are you?

I'm not? He's been good every other year.

In 2002. You know, going on 7 years ago.

The production that year isn't that off of what he's done since.


And had a 4.47 ERA in 2003. Not too different an ERA than Vazquez had in '08, mind you. You know, the guy you skewered for pitching over 200 innings for the overwhelming majority of his career?

Really?

Lowe's 2003 ERA was actually 20 points lower than league average that year. He also went 17-7 that year. And while record isn't always the best indication of how a season really went, Lowe wasn't a complete mind **** like Javy. You don't win 17 games and have a bad year. You do lose 16 and have a bad year. Those seasons aren't comparable.


And had a 5.42 ERA as a starter in 2004. Which is why I maintain that Lowe sucked a horse's ass the last time he was in the big boy AL. But you glossed over all of this, and instead chose to focus on his good year that happened 7 years ago.


You're still picking on the ONE season in the AL he was bad. One out of MANY. As for the 7 years ago thing....well, the season you're keying in on was five years ago.

So five years ago + statistical annomoly = bad player :?:



Him getting arrested for domestic battery, and then immediately violating the terms of his bond when he was in Seattle says a lot about him being a bad guy. Him being one of the few MLB players to publickly get caught cheating on his wife says a lot about his sense of judgement and his character. Him choosing Scott Boras as his agent says a lot about his greed.

But again, he "rebounded" in the NL.


Irrelevant. We're debating talent, not his personal life or his character. But at least now I'm beginning to understand why you're so biased against him.


And you keying on one good season, which is going on 7 years ago, in the big boy AL is even sillier.


1998 - 2003 in the AL isn't keying in on one season. 10 good seasons in baseball out of 11 isn't keying in on one season. That's what you're doing.

khan
12-11-2008, 02:03 PM
I'm not? He's been good every other year.
And you're wrong. Again. He had a nice year 7 years ago in the big boy AL. He sucked in his last 2 years in the big boy AL [Again: ERAs of 4.47 and 5.42 in his last 2 years before getting ****-canned by the sawks.]. He then got rich getting 3 free outs/game facing opposing pitchers in the NL in one of the best pitchers' parks in MLB. Good luck to him with facing REAL hitters instead of easy outs in hitters' parks in the AL. At 36 years old and beyond.

Lowe's 2003 ERA was actually 20 points lower than league average that year.
And you were the one who wrote, "he's one of the games best." So now you're calling him "average?" Thank you for agreeing with me.

He also went 17-7 that year. And while record isn't always the best indication of how a season really went,
Lowe wasn't a complete mind **** like Javy. You don't win 17 games and have a bad year. You do lose 16 and have a bad year. Those seasons aren't comparable.
And here you go cherry picking years again. How about the 14 or 15 loss seasons Lowe's had? W-L record is an absolutely worthless metric, anyway.

Irrelevant. We're debating talent, not his personal life or his character. But at least now I'm beginning to understand why you're so biased against him.
Actually, we're debating the overall value of giving $66M/4 years to a player. Look at the title of the thread.

My view is: Given his middling ability for the AL, as demonstrated by his craptitude the last time he was in the Big Boy AL, given that he's a bad guy, and given that he's old, I state that this is yet another stupid signing by a stupid organization.

Apparently, your view is that 7 years ago, Derek Lowe had a good/lucky year in the big boy AL. He's had a few average years in the little-boy NL. Because of this, it's a grand idea to give a 36 year old bad guy $66M/4 years. And for some insane idea, you've anointed him "one of the games best," too. Though now, you've backed off this by calling him "average."

munchman33
12-11-2008, 04:07 PM
And you're wrong. Again. He had a nice year 7 years ago in the big boy AL. He sucked in his last 2 years in the big boy AL [Again: ERAs of 4.47 and 5.42 in his last 2 years before getting ****-canned by the sawks.]. He then got rich getting 3 free outs/game facing opposing pitchers in the NL in one of the best pitchers' parks in MLB. Good luck to him with facing REAL hitters instead of easy outs in hitters' parks in the AL. At 36 years old and beyond.


And you were the one who wrote, "he's one of the games best." So now you're calling him "average?" Thank you for agreeing with me.


And here you go cherry picking years again. How about the 14 or 15 loss seasons Lowe's had? W-L record is an absolutely worthless metric, anyway.


Actually, we're debating the overall value of giving $66M/4 years to a player. Look at the title of the thread.

My view is: Given his middling ability for the AL, as demonstrated by his craptitude the last time he was in the Big Boy AL, given that he's a bad guy, and given that he's old, I state that this is yet another stupid signing by a stupid organization.

Apparently, your view is that 7 years ago, Derek Lowe had a good/lucky year in the big boy AL. He's had a few average years in the little-boy NL. Because of this, it's a grand idea to give a 36 year old bad guy $66M/4 years. And for some insane idea, you've anointed him "one of the games best," too. Though now, you've backed off this by calling him "average."

I didn't say he was average...I said, in one of his worst years, he was still 20 points better than average.

All those 14 or 15 loss seasons? :?: All two of them in 11 seasons (and no times in the "big boy" league)? Both times he lost that many times, he had really good years. A hell of a lot better than Javy did to lose 16 games. Unless you want to argue that Javy's 4.60+ era is somehow comparable to ERA's a whole point under that. Which, by the way, it isn't. But you'll probably say it is because of some unprovable "big boy" league notion where a 4.50 AL era is equal to a 3.50 NL era. Save me that nonsense, the gap isn't that big.

Lowe was damn dominant before 2003 in the AL. 2003 was his fifth year in the league, and fourth straight great year in the AL. 2004 was still an above average year. So that's five really good AL years to one bad year. Then he went to the NL and had four very good years. I'm not seeing any rational reason why anyone would consider him anything other than VERY good, because he's been VERY good for the vast majority of his career. Players that good for that long are not the norm. I called him one of the best for a reason. Because he is.

khan
12-11-2008, 04:34 PM
I didn't say he was average...
Actually, you did. Never are "one of the games' best" to be compared to "average." One doesn't compare C.C. Sabathia to "average." One doesn't compare Greg Maddux(sp?) to "average." One doesn't compare Cy Young to "average." But you DID compare Derek Lowe to "average." Which is a very apt description for him.

All those 14 or 15 loss seasons? :?: All two of them in 11 seasons
Actually, since he was a setup man from 1997-2001, He's had two of those in 7 years as a starter, although W-L record is absolutely worthless in terms of evaluating a SP.

But there you go again, cherry picking the stats and misrepresenting the facts.

Both times he lost that many times, he had really good years. A hell of a lot better than Javy did to lose 16 games.
And there you go again, comparing Old, Average, and bad guy Derek Lowe to an average SP.

Save me that nonsense, the gap isn't that big.
So you agree with me that there IS a gap? Thank you.

Lowe was damn dominant before 2003 in the AL.
No he wasn't. Again, he was a reliever from 1997 - 2001.

2003 was his fifth year in the league, and fourth straight great year in the AL.
Here: I'll cite a small part of his wiki page:

"Lowe struggled through much of the 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Major_League_Baseball_season) season, but boosted by the strength of Boston's thunderous offense, posted a 17-7 record despite a 4.47 ERA."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Lowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Lowe)

2004 was still an above average year.
A 5.42 ERA is above average? A 1.61 WHIP is above average? Only 182.2IP is above average? 105 Ks to 71 BBs is above average? Wow.

Then he went to the NL and had four very good years.
And, again, you're wrong. When a SP has only 1 year out of 4 with a <3.5 ERA in the NL, he hasn't had 4 "very good years."

I called him one of the best for a reason. Because he is.
So "one of the best" has a 5.42 ERA in ANY year? "One of the best" hasn't been selected to the All Star Game since 2002? "One of the best" has never struckout more than 150 batters in a year? At best, you're high.


But this is all immaterial. You haven't made a case for Old, mediocre, and bad guy Derek Lowe being given $66M/4yrs. Your ignorance of the league, of its players, and of what is a good deal is apparent.

munchman33
12-11-2008, 04:44 PM
Actually, you did. Never are "one of the games' best" to be compared to "average." One doesn't compare C.C. Sabathia to "average." One doesn't compare Greg Maddux(sp?) to "average." One doesn't compare Cy Young to "average." But you DID compare Derek Lowe to "average." Which is a very apt description for him.


Actually, since he was a setup man from 1997-2001, He's had two of those in 7 years as a starter, although W-L record is absolutely worthless in terms of evaluating a SP.

But there you go again, cherry picking the stats and misrepresenting the facts.


And there you go again, comparing Old, Average, and bad guy Derek Lowe to an average SP.


So you agree with me that there IS a gap? Thank you.


No he wasn't. Again, he was a reliever from 1997 - 2001.


Here: I'll cite a small part of his wiki page:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Lowe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Lowe)


A 5.42 ERA is above average? A 1.61 WHIP is above average? Only 182.2IP is above average? 105 Ks to 71 BBs is above average? Wow.


And, again, you're wrong. When a SP has only 1 year out of 4 with a <3.5 ERA in the NL, he hasn't had 4 "very good years."


So "one of the best" has a 5.42 ERA in ANY year? "One of the best" hasn't been selected to the All Star Game since 2002? "One of the best" has never struckout more than 150 batters in a year? At best, you're high.


But this is all immaterial. You haven't made a case for Old, mediocre, and bad guy Derek Lowe being given $66M/4yrs. Your ignorance of the league, of its players, and of what is a good deal is apparent.

You're leaving me with way to much to pick on you about. (You quoted wikipedia as a source. Like that line wasn't written by a disgruntled red sox fan.) I'll just reiterate.



Since becoming a starter, Lowe has thrown 180+ innings every year, 199+ innings 6 times and 210+ innings 4 times. Guys that throw that many innings every year with an ERA in the 3's are ****ing spectacular. Who else does that, year in and year out? He's a horse AND an ace. He is not the norm. He's special. One of the best.

kittle42
12-11-2008, 04:51 PM
You're leaving me with way to much to pick on you about. (You quoted wikipedia as a source. Like that line wasn't written by a disgruntled red sox fan.) I'll just reiterate.



Since becoming a starter, Lowe has thrown 180+ innings every year, 199+ innings 6 times and 210+ innings 4 times. Guys that throw that many innings every year with an ERA in the 3's are ****ing spectacular. Who else does that, year in and year out? He's a horse AND an ace. He is not the norm. He's special. One of the best.

No, he really isn't - anymore. He was great as a closer. As a starter with Boston, he had an awesome year, an average year, and a pretty bad year (despite a 14-12 record), in that order. He then went back to being pretty damn good again with the Dodgers (it helped that the walk totals shrank considerably), but never more than (though I hate these distinctions) a "Number 2" or one of those "Guys who you can kind of argue are No. 1 but really just make great No.2" guys.

I would say that I'd love to have him, that he would arguably be the No. 1 on the White Sox right now, but that he is hardly "one of the best."

khan
12-11-2008, 05:00 PM
You're leaving me with way to much to pick on you about.
Actually, you're merely wrong about this guy. You've been overstating his stats, cherry-picking years, and mis-representing the facts. When I state "The last time he was in the big boy AL," you cherry-picked a season that was 7 years ago.

You have not made your points clear at all, and your terming Derek Lowe "one of the best" clearly illustrates your myopia.


Guys that throw that many innings every year with an ERA in the 3's in the National League are average.
Fixed your post. Mod edit: "Fixing" another poster's post is a serious no-no. See you in a week.

He's a horse
agreed.
AND an ace.
Disagreed. An "ace" never has a 5.42 ERA or a 1.61 WHIP in the middle of his prime.

He's special. One of the best.
Again, you're high.

munchman33
12-12-2008, 01:24 AM
Actually, you're merely wrong about this guy. You've been overstating his stats, cherry-picking years, and mis-representing the facts. When I state "The last time he was in the big boy AL," you cherry-picked a season that was 7 years ago.

You have not made your points clear at all, and your terming Derek Lowe "one of the best" clearly illustrates your myopia.



Fixed your post.


agreed.

Disagreed. An "ace" never has a 5.42 ERA or a 1.61 WHIP in the middle of his prime.


Again, you're high.

So...I essentially say Lowe was a great pitcher 1998-2002, a very good pitcher in 2003, and great 2005-2008.

And you focus on 2004 to claim he's a bad pitcher.

But I'm the one cherry-picking years. :?:

As for the claim that an "ace" can't have a bad, anamolous season in the middle of his career....:rolling: This is baseball, it could happen to anybody. It's happened to tons of pitchers. Heck, it even happened to Roger Clemens, who was probably the best pitcher of all time. Seriously, did you just start watching baseball this year? Not trying to make fun...serious question.