PDA

View Full Version : His name is Weaver, not Johnson...


Tragg
06-11-2002, 03:19 PM
Who is this guy Jeff Weaver?

Never won more games than he lost.

Never had an ERA below 4. This year it's 3.94

I assume, by his strike out totals that he is NOT the power pitcher that we desperately need.

Sounds like another Todd Ritchie to me.

A Todd Ritchie with a history of headhunting Sox hitters.


And we want to give up a fireball lefty prospect for him?

Or one of the 2 or 3 legitimate positional prospects we have in AA up?

Sounds like the typical Kenny Williams move. Hopefully the Tigers will follow the Angels example and save Kenny Williams from himself.

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
Who is this guy Jeff Weaver?

Never won more games than he lost.

Never had an ERA below 4. This year it's 3.94

I assume, by his strike out totals that he is NOT the power pitcher that we desperately need.

Sounds like another Todd Ritchie to me.

A Todd Ritchie with a history of headhunting Sox hitters.


And we want to give up a fireball lefty prospect for him?

Or one of the 2 or 3 legitimate positional prospects we have in AA up?

Sounds like the typical Kenny Williams move. Hopefully the Tigers will follow the Angels example and save Kenny Williams from himself. i agree weaver is not worth the players they are talking about................ he is not that good..........

hold2dibber
06-11-2002, 03:43 PM
Weaver may not be Walter Johnson, but he is a solid #2 (which Todd Ritchie is definitely not - he is a 4 on a contender). He has a 3.94 ERA, a 2-to-1 KO/BB ratio, his whip is 1.34 and he has give up only 2 HRs in 89 IP. He has allowed 3 or less earned runs in 8 of 12 starts, and 4 ERs in two of the others. He has two complete game shut outs. He has only been "shelled" (i.e., knocked out before the 5th) only once all year. His ERA has gone down every year he has been in the majors (from 5.32 to 4.32 to 4.08 to 3.94). He is 25 years old and signed for 2 or 3 more years after this one. He is a warrior on the mound who despises losing. Honestly, we'll be lucky if Rauch or Malone is as good as Weaver is - and who knows, those guys may flame out and never be as good as Weaver is now. I'm not saying give up the farm for the guy, but he is a quality, young starting pitcher and he has that intensity and fire that, IMHO, the Sox sorely need (in the Black Jack McDowell mode). If you can get Weaver for some combination of two of Lee, Crede and Malone and a lesser prospect, I'd do it. If it would take Borchard, Crede and Rauch, no friggin' way. It depends on what we'd have to give up, but I would absolutely love to have Weaver.

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 03:46 PM
walter johnson............. try the wrong johnson, but funny.

where are ALL the supporters of ritchie when we first got him saying that he was going to win 15 games and he is a good pitcher pitching on a bad team............. c'mon, come foreward and take your credit.............. and lets see if these are the same one saying the same thing about weaver.

hold2dibber
06-11-2002, 03:51 PM
I was, and am, glad the Sox picked up Ritchie (although they overpaid by one pitcher). However, if you told me that Ritchie would have a 4.40 or so ERA and 11 decisions in mid-June, with this offense I would have guessed he would have a record of 8-3 or 7-4, not 3-8. Ritchie is just about what I thought he'd be. He is a decent, professional pitcher. He has pitched in bad luck and has had horrible support, both by his offense and his defense. He is not star, but if the team had played up to its potential behind him, he would be on pace for a 15 win season. And he still might get to that level, if the offense ever gets back on track.

There is no question in my mind, however, that Weaver is a better pitcher than Ritchie. He is five years younger, has a better arm and has already had more success than Ritchie. Weaver has much more upside than Ritchie does. It's not even close.

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I was, and am, glad the Sox picked up Ritchie (although they overpaid by one pitcher). However, if you told me that Ritchie would have a 4.40 or so ERA and 11 decisions in mid-June, with this offense I would have guessed he would have a record of 8-3 or 7-4, not 3-8. Ritchie is just about what I thought he'd be. He is a decent, professional pitcher. He has pitched in bad luck and has had horrible support, both by his offense and his defense. He is not star, but if the team had played up to its potential behind him, he would be on pace for a 15 win season. And he still might get to that level, if the offense ever gets back on track.

There is no question in my mind, however, that Weaver is a better pitcher than Ritchie. He is five years younger, has a better arm and has already had more success than Ritchie. Weaver has much more upside than Ritchie does. It's not even close. getting ritchie and overpaying is what i am still angry about.......... ritchie may be a decent pitcher but no-way is he a 15 game winner and i really don't think he will come close to it this yr.......... and the what if doesn't carry weight....... deal with facts........

you assuming weaver is better again doesn't hold water, he is inconsistent and many scout reports are in agreement with this. he is overrated.

duke of dorwood
06-11-2002, 03:58 PM
:KW

MLGM i/n/s/o middle of the road pitching. Must like moonlight walks (when our lights go out) and October Golf.

Please reply Comiskey Park, 35th & Bill Veeck Dr. Chicago

WinningUgly!
06-11-2002, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
walter johnson............. try the wrong johnson, but funny.

where are ALL the supporters of ritchie when we first got him saying that he was going to win 15 games and he is a good pitcher pitching on a bad team............. c'mon, come foreward and take your credit.............. and lets see if these are the same one saying the same thing about weaver.

OK, I'll bite. I supported the Ritchie deal at the time it was done & to a certain extent still do. I said at the time the deal was made that we overpaid for Ritchie...quite a bit obviously. That's how it works in baseball. Nobody is giving away the top pitchers in the league...or even the just above average ones!

Just for the record...Ritchie will still win 15 :D:

Daver
06-11-2002, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
getting ritchie and overpaying is what i am still angry about.......... ritchie may be a decent pitcher but no-way is he a 15 game winner and i really don't think he will come close to it this yr.......... and the what if doesn't carry weight....... deal with facts........

you assuming weaver is better again doesn't hold water, he is inconsistent and many scout reports are in agreement with this. he is overrated.

In a league where starting pitching is very hard to come by,even mediocre starting pitching,where is the line drawn on overpaying?

hold2dibber
06-11-2002, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
getting ritchie and overpaying is what i am still angry about.......... ritchie may be a decent pitcher but no-way is he a 15 game winner and i really don't think he will come close to it this yr.......... and the what if doesn't carry weight....... deal with facts........

you assuming weaver is better again doesn't hold water, he is inconsistent and many scout reports are in agreement with this. he is overrated.

No way is he a 15 game winner? He won 11 last year with a horrible team behind him (they lost nearly 100 games). Do you really think it a stretch to think he would win 4 more games than last year with a (supposedly) much better team surrounding him? If so, why? And as to "dealing with facts" the facts are that the team has played horribly behind Ritchie this year -- how is that his fault? I think you're pissed because KW overpaid for Ritchie (and I agree he did), but don't let that color your assesment of Ritchie's performance. Ritchie has been solid, and that's all I ever expected of him. He has pitched much better than his record indicates, and that is a fact.

As to Weaver, he has give up 4 or less ERs in 10 of his 12 starts this year. He has gotten better ever year he's been in the majors. So explain to me why you say he is "inconsistent"? How is he "overrated"?

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by daver


In a league where starting pitching is very hard to come by,even mediocre starting pitching,where is the line drawn on overpaying? when all conventional wisdom is saying that we are giving away too much........ if we are to overpay, then we should overpay for top pitching.

so by your analogy, we should give lee, rauch and malone and maybe ginter for weaver............. or should the line be drawn?

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


No way is he a 15 game winner? He won 11 last year with a horrible team behind him (they lost nearly 100 games). Do you really think it a stretch to think he would win 4 more games than last year with a (supposedly) much better team surrounding him? If so, why? And as to "dealing with facts" the facts are that the team has played horribly behind Ritchie this year -- how is that his fault? I think you're pissed because KW overpaid for Ritchie (and I agree he did), but don't let that color your assesment of Ritchie's performance. Ritchie has been solid, and that's all I ever expected of him. He has pitched much better than his record indicates, and that is a fact.

As to Weaver, he has give up 4 or less ERs in 10 of his 12 starts this year. He has gotten better ever year he's been in the majors. So explain to me why you say he is "inconsistent"? How is he "overrated"? but is he going to win that this yr........ who cares what the team is doing, a win and a lost is that and they don't have a column on how the team played.....

ref weaver i have read in reports before and during the season on pitchers.......... the same was mention when the sox were interested in weaver before the season........... if you ask me for the proof........ i don't have it and i don't know if BA still has it....

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!




Just for the record...Ritchie will still win 15 :D: lmao :D:



yeah right.

Daver
06-11-2002, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
when all conventional wisdom is saying that we are giving away too much........ if we are to overpay, then we should overpay for top pitching.

so by your analogy, we should give lee, rauch and malone and maybe ginter for weaver............. or should the line be drawn?

I don't want to trade for Weaver period,but that's just me.

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by daver


I don't want to trade for Weaver period,but that's just me. i am too indifferent for getting weaver........ but lets not overpay.......... that is my point........... weaver is not that good in my opinion.......... but lets not get rid of all the good talent we have ........ like we have in the past.

Jerry_Manuel
06-11-2002, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
i am too indifferent for getting weaver........ but lets not overpay.......... that is my point........... weaver is not that good in my opinion.......... but lets not get rid of all the good talent we have ........ like we have in the past.

Who do you want the Sox to go after then? (Pitching wise)

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Who do you want the Sox to go after then? (Pitching wise) i will get back to you on that..... ok?

hold2dibber
06-11-2002, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
but is he going to win that this yr........ who cares what the team is doing, a win and a lost is that and they don't have a column on how the team played.....



I don't think I'm going to turn you around on this, but I'll make one last try -- assessing a pitcher's performance by his W/L record is absurd. If John Burkett goes 18-7 with a 4.72 ERA for a Red Sox team that wins 95 games and Paul Wilson goes 10-15 with a 3.50 ERA for a Devil Rays team that wins 65 games, are you suggesting that Burkett pitched better than Wilson? To do so would be to evaluate the pitcher based on factors that are completely out of his control - how is that fair? Would you blame a wide receiver for not catching any TD passes if his QB was blind and couldn't throw the ball 5 yards? Would you blame a QB for not winning a game when his receivers dropped every ball he threw? Would you blame a NASCAR driver if his car broke down or another driver blind sided him and he lost as a result? It is not Ritchie's fault that the team has played like crap behind him. Yet you criticize him for it (indirectly, by criticizing a W/L record that is largely attributable to the team's lousy play when he pitches). How does that make sense?

Jerry_Manuel
06-11-2002, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
i will get back to you on that..... ok?

Fine.

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Fine. better yet........ why trade our prospects for ptichers.......... lets trade lee/clayton/durham/leifer/rowand and see how the team respond......... do we really need a pitcher to turn this season around.

hold2dibber
06-11-2002, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
better yet........ why trade our prospects for ptichers.......... lets trade lee/clayton/durham/leifer/rowand and see how the team respond......... do we really need a pitcher to turn this season around.

Trade them for what? (If you're trading Lee, Rowand and Liefer, I hope we're getting some OF help in return).

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


I don't think I'm going to turn you around on this, but I'll make one last try -- assessing a pitcher's performance by his W/L record is absurd. If John Burkett goes 18-7 with a 4.72 ERA for a Red Sox team that wins 95 games and Paul Wilson goes 10-15 with a 3.50 ERA for a Devil Rays team that wins 65 games, are you suggesting that Burkett pitched better than Wilson? To do so would be to evaluate the pitcher based on factors that are completely out of his control - how is that fair? Would you blame a wide receiver for not catching any TD passes if his QB was blind and couldn't throw the ball 5 yards? Would you blame a QB for not winning a game when his receivers dropped every ball he threw? Would you blame a NASCAR driver if his car broke down or another driver blind sided him and he lost as a result? It is not Ritchie's fault that the team has played like crap behind him. Yet you criticize him for it (indirectly, by criticizing a W/L record that is largely attributable to the team's lousy play when he pitches). How does that make sense? ref to burkett, yes when 18 of his wins are attributed to the 95 wins........ but this is not the case....... ritchie nor weaver is in the same area as a wilson or are they?

ref to football, his stats speak for themselves..... whether its one dropped ball or not.......... when he is 10-30 in a game, do they talked about all the others balls?????? no only his stat.

ref to nascar...... who cares........... i don't know anything about nascar.

is the pitcher loses not associated with how he pitches????

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Trade them for what? (If you're trading Lee, Rowand and Liefer, I hope we're getting some OF help in return). i don't care what you trade them for........ just trade them........ it doesn't have to be all at the same time..

Randar68
06-11-2002, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
ref to football, his stats speak for themselves..... whether its one dropped ball or not.......... when he is 10-30 in a game, do they talked about all the others balls?????? no only his stat.

is the pitcher loses not associated with how he pitches????

Football GM's, scouts, etc, will know that this is still a very good QB if guys are dropping all his throws and clouding his stats, but commentators or casual fans may not...


The difference is how the casual fan perceives the W-L in relation to the pitcher's ability, as opposed to how a GM or scout perceives it. IMO, W-L is an indication, but it is not a very good general indicator of all but the very few top-notch pitchers' abilities...

WHIP, ERA, IP, K:BB, are all much better indicators for starting pitchers than W-L.

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Football GM's, scouts, etc, will know that this is still a very good QB if guys are dropping all his throws and clouding his stats, but commentators or casual fans may not...


The difference is how the casual fan perceives the W-L in relation to the pitcher's ability, as opposed to how a GM or scout perceives it. IMO, W-L is an indication, but it is not a very good general indicator of all but the very few top-notch pitchers' abilities...

WHIP, ERA, IP, K:BB, are all much better indicators for starting pitchers than W-L. good point and since none of us really works for the mlb in any capacity, we are basing all this on our opinion and no-one can say for sure if any one of us is right or wrong.

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Randar68




WHIP, ERA, IP, K:BB, are all much better indicators for starting pitchers than W-L. and what is ritchies and weavers stats......

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


WHIP, . what is a good whip? i been looking up a couple of pitcher stats and don't know what a whip is.

Daver
06-11-2002, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
what is a good whip? i been looking up a couple of pitcher stats and don't know what a whip is.

Walks plus hits for innings pitched. 1.25 is a very good WHIP.

hold2dibber
06-11-2002, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan


is the pitcher loses not associated with how he pitches????

It is "associated" but there are many, many other factors outside of a pitcher's control that contribute to W/L record (e.g., his own team's offense, his own team's defense, the pitcher he is facing, umpires, etc.) As Randar points out, there are many statistics that are a better gauge of a pitcher's effectiveness than W/L. My point with respect to Ritchie is, he has pitched better than his W/L record indicates. He hasn't been great, but he has been at least good enough to have a .500 record if he was getting any kind of support from his teammates.

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


It is "associated" but there are many, many other factors outside of a pitcher's control that contribute to W/L record (e.g., his own team's offense, his own team's defense, the pitcher he is facing, umpires, etc.) As Randar points out, there are many statistics that are a better gauge of a pitcher's effectiveness than W/L. My point with respect to Ritchie is, he has pitched better than his W/L record indicates. He hasn't been great, but he has been at least good enough to have a .500 record if he was getting any kind of support from his teammates. if if if..... is what i keeping hearing........ this is like that same discussion about royce vs jose..........

i thought a truce was in order........ this concerns opinions and no-one is going to change the other opinion.......... as i think that weaver is not worth the players that was being mention and as we over paid for ritchie with kipper having a 1.34 whip and a record of 8-3........ kw is not a good gage(sp) of talent in trading..... imo

LongDistanceFan
06-11-2002, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by daver


Walks plus hits for innings pitched. 1.25 is a very good WHIP. oops i forgot........ thanks for the info

Tragg
06-11-2002, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by daver


I don't want to trade for Weaver period,but that's just me.

It's me too.

Tragg
06-11-2002, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


It is not Ritchie's fault that the team has played like crap behind him. Yet you criticize him for it (indirectly, by criticizing a W/L record that is largely attributable to the team's lousy play when he pitches). How does that make sense?

Goodness, Ritchie has been shelled in 4 of his last 5 games and the only one in which he wasn't shelled, he pitched Gloveresque. ( 4 runs in 6 innings). He now has an ERA of 4.77 - that is not the team's fault.

palehosemike
06-11-2002, 11:19 PM
Ok Weaver supporters lets put our thinking caps back on.... In case you forgot we drafted Mr. Jeff Weaver but were unable to come to terms with him, eh I mean his agent, Scott Boras. Does that name ring a bell? The Sox brain trust has a terrible history with Boras, so what makes you think that we will be able to sign Mr. Weaver once his contract is up? Yes it is a fact he has 3.5 years left on his contract but why give up multiple MLB type players for him that could provide years of service on the south side?

Who is going to fill the gap at third if Crede is traded? Maybe would should trade to get Norton back and give him another chance. The Cardinals released Chris Snopek from their AAA team... he is available! Jesus I have been waiting for a "real" third baseman since Ventura left....

Trade another pitching prospect? Who do we have left? The once hyped pitching supply is depleted... oh where have you gone Josh Fogg and Kip Wells?

Also isn't Comerica Park suppose to be pitchers park?
He is 2-5 with a 4.99 ERA at Comerica Park this year. Hate to see what his stats would be pitching half his starts at Comiskey.

Basically the first time we tried to get this guy it didn't work out - lets leave it that way.

Lip Man 1
06-11-2002, 11:37 PM
Just a different take on this whole Weaver for more pitching prospects theme.....

If as many folks say (and I tend to agree with) that Nardi is ruining all the young "can't miss kids..." then it stands to reason that as long as Nardi is here, whoever these kids are and no matter how good they are, they'll never produce with the Sox.

By this reasoning it then stands that by trading them you're actually losing nothing. If they go on to produce for the Tigers, that's great but by the thinking of many on this board they'll never do it for the Sox.

And frankly it doesn't look like Nardi or Manager Gandhi's going anywhere for the next few years...so why not get Weaver an experienced MLB pitcher who perhaps won't be affected by Nardi's incompetence because he has a better idea (after four years in the bigs) of what to do.

Just something to consider

Lip

palehosemike
06-11-2002, 11:50 PM
With that philosophy we sould just throw - Rauch, Honel, and Ring at the Tigers and see if they bite. Not a bad deal - 2 first round draft picks and a MLPOY for a pitcher who has a better idea when he takes the mound. No offense but KW might have a right hand man job available for you - your desk right next to his :D:

I wonder what ideas are rolling through Jeff's head when he pitches at Comerica Park - maybe how to lower that 4.99 ERA he has there?

LongDistanceFan
06-12-2002, 01:14 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Who do you want the Sox to go after then? (Pitching wise) as i said why should we trade pitching prospects when we could trade others........... but if i would like a reasonable scenario for a pit.......... i would love to get vasquez (sp) from mont but that is not going to happen....... so here are pitchers that i like and think that may be had

brett tomko
padila from phil
octel from hou
jacob peavey sd
jesus colume tb reliever
ben sheets mil
Franklyn German oak

i am sure we can package a hell of a deal esp for german.... which i still think all may be better than weaver.... you can't tell me kw could not have gotten a better trade with another team with what we have already given up? now we are going to over pay for weaver????????

Spiff
06-12-2002, 04:14 AM
FYI

Weaver has given up 20H 13ER in his last 11 IP. Everyone is all over Foulke for struggling lately, yet some of them want to trade for this guy?

cornball
06-12-2002, 07:35 AM
I think Weaver would be a nice addition, thus far he is a middle of the rotation pitcher but he is excellant at times. I dont do this deal with Crede, not that he is the end all beat all, but because he will shine when given the chance.

The Boros factor is huge but 3+ plus years is a long time. The attitude of Weaver is want alot of people like...more so than his pitching... i welcome the addition of him if you can get him for the right price..like Lee, Parque and 2 prospects we never heard of

DrWatson27
06-12-2002, 08:10 AM
I hear all the time about all the good young arms the Sox have in the organization, and if teams have to overpay to get even mediocre pitching, why can't the Sox get people to overpay for the supposed good pitching talent in the Sox system. It seems to me it's only the Sox and a few other ballclubs with over-matched, unqualified, dumba$$ GMs that get fleeced over and over and over again.

LongDistanceFan
06-12-2002, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by DrWatson27
I hear all the time about all the good young arms the Sox have in the organization, and if teams have to overpay to get even mediocre pitching, why can't the Sox get people to overpay for the supposed good pitching talent in the Sox system. It seems to me it's only the Sox and a few other ballclubs with over-matched, unqualified, dumba$$ GMs that get fleeced over and over and over again. b/c that is the story of kw

LongDistanceFan
06-12-2002, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by cornball
I think Weaver would be a nice addition, thus far he is a middle of the rotation pitcher but he is excellant at times. I dont do this deal with Crede, not that he is the end all beat all, but because he will shine when given the chance.

The Boros factor is huge but 3+ plus years is a long time. The attitude of Weaver is want alot of people like...more so than his pitching... i welcome the addition of him if you can get him for the right price..like Lee, Parque and 2 prospects we never heard of i would expect to see boras hold out his client in the last yr as he did with others so they can trade him or resign him to a new contract.......... he has a history of that.

Tragg
06-12-2002, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by DrWatson27
I hear all the time about all the good young arms the Sox have in the organization, and if teams have to overpay to get even mediocre pitching, why can't the Sox get people to overpay for the supposed good pitching talent in the Sox system. It seems to me it's only the Sox and a few other ballclubs with over-matched, unqualified, dumba$$ GMs that get fleeced over and over and over again.

KW is a product of his mentor, Scheuler. Scheuler went out of his way to avoid fleecing people. Case in point, White Flag. He refused to trade to the American League team - didn't want enemies. As a result, Boston got more talent for whoever that crummy closer they gave to Seattle was than the Sox got for Hernandez and Alvarez and Darwin.

You could argue that the Navarro trade was a fllece - it was. But on paper, it was simply dumping our garb for their garb (plus the brewers didn't scout john snyder very closely, apparently).

hold2dibber
06-12-2002, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


KW is a product of his mentor, Scheuler. Scheuler went out of his way to avoid fleecing people. Case in point, White Flag. He refused to trade to the American League team - didn't want enemies. As a result, Boston got more talent for whoever that crummy closer they gave to Seattle was than the Sox got for Hernandez and Alvarez and Darwin.

You could argue that the Navarro trade was a fllece - it was. But on paper, it was simply dumping our garb for their garb (plus the brewers didn't scout john snyder very closely, apparently).

Boston got Jason Varitek and, I believe, Dereck Lowe, for Heathcliff Slocumb. Now THAT'S a one sided deal.

But I don't understand the rest of your post. What makes you say Schueler didn't want to deal with AL teams? Why wouldn't he want to make "enemies" in the AL? Why would he care about enemies in the AL but not in the NL? And why would making a trade with someone make them an enemy?

LongDistanceFan
06-12-2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Boston got Jason Varitek and, I believe, Dereck Lowe, for Heathcliff Slocumb. Now THAT'S a one sided deal.

But I don't understand the rest of your post. What makes you say Schueler didn't want to deal with AL teams? Why wouldn't he want to make "enemies" in the AL? Why would he care about enemies in the AL but not in the NL? And why would making a trade with someone make them an enemy? i could see how one may not want to trade within the same division, but not for fear of making an enemy but for not willing to help some team you want to beat.

Tragg
06-12-2002, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


Boston got Jason Varitek and, I believe, Dereck Lowe, for Heathcliff Slocumb. Now THAT'S a one sided deal.

But I don't understand the rest of your post. What makes you say Schueler didn't want to deal with AL teams? Why wouldn't he want to make "enemies" in the AL? Why would he care about enemies in the AL but not in the NL? And why would making a trade with someone make them an enemy?

I admit my source is dubious - Gammons - but Gammons said repeatedly when the trade winds were in the works, that Scheuler wouldn't deal with an AL team. And looking at the results, I believe it. Roberto Hernandez WAS a better pitcher than Slocumb (still is) - why in the world wouldn't we have made that deal, especially since we needed a catcher desperately and both players were top notch prospects (we got maybe 1, maybe 0, top notch prospects from the giants)? Further, Seattle also gave Jose Cruz Jr, another top prospect, (although pretty much a bust) to the Jays for Timlin and some other mediocre pitcher.
Seattle was desperate - big time - and Scheuler wouldn't deal with them.