PDA

View Full Version : Starter to Yankees??


ohiosoxfan
12-14-2010, 01:19 PM
With the Yankees missing out on Lee, they will probably get desperate to try to keep up with Boston. And if Pettitte decides to retire, they will be doubly desperate. Is it time to see about interest in Jackson or Floyd to gain a prospect or two (Montero) and also to free up cash to sign a couple of relievers?

Daver
12-14-2010, 01:23 PM
The White Sox only have four viable starters now that will be in the rotation on opening day, who replaces Jackson or Floyd as well as Peavy?

LoveYourSuit
12-14-2010, 01:23 PM
I realize we want to move Jackson because of his salary, but to me he is my #1 starter going into this season (as crazy as that sounds). He was our best pitcher from the minute he put on the Sox uniform last year. He was the most dominant guy we had.


Floyd or even Danks I would move before Jackson.

Now if Peavy is ready, then I can see us moving Jackson instead.

Nelfox02
12-14-2010, 01:27 PM
With the Yankees missing out on Lee, they will probably get desperate to try to keep up with Boston. And if Pettitte decides to retire, they will be doubly desperate. Is it time to see about interest in Jackson or Floyd to gain a prospect or two (Montero) and also to free up cash to sign a couple of relievers?


please no

Moses_Scurry
12-14-2010, 01:33 PM
They better get a better return than freakin' Marquez and Betemit this time!

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 01:35 PM
jackson has part of his salary paid for by the diamondbacks for 2011. why the sudden need to move him?

DirtySox
12-14-2010, 01:42 PM
jackson has part of his salary paid for by the diamondbacks for 2011.

Source?

TomBradley72
12-14-2010, 01:43 PM
The White Sox only have four viable starters now that will be in the rotation on opening day, who replaces Jackson or Floyd as well as Peavy?

Thank You!

All of these posts about trading Floyd, Buehrle, etc. are completely out of touch with reality- with Peavy out and Hudson traded- there is no depth in starting pitching in the organization.

KMcMahon817
12-14-2010, 01:54 PM
I realize we want to move Jackson because of his salary, but to me he is my #1 starter going into this season (as crazy as that sounds). He was our best pitcher from the minute he put on the Sox uniform last year. He was the most dominant guy we had.



Floyd or even Danks I would move before Jackson.

Now if Peavy is ready, then I can see us moving Jackson instead.

Khan is going to have a field day with this.

I like Jackson too, but over Danks? :scratch:

The more I think about dealing a starter, the more I don't like it. Sale will likely need a couple months in the minor to get acclimated to starting again. Peavy will likely be out that same duration as well. The only starter that really make sense to move is Buehrle, as much as it pains me to say. His 14 million could be spent much more wisely (closer and a decent 4th starter).

Start the year with:

Danks
Floyd
Jackson
4th starter
Garcia?

Meh....

But by late May/ early June:

Danks
Peavy
Floyd
Jackson
Sale/ 4th starter


Now that doesn't look as bad..

psyclonis
12-14-2010, 02:05 PM
jackson has part of his salary paid for by the diamondbacks for 2011. why the sudden need to move him?

Sox are paying 100% of his contract;
KW traded 5 years of a cheap Hudson for 1.25/~10M of a questionable Jackson.
If a lopsided trade shows up for Jackson, no question KW would take it.

Since Floyd and Danks were the teams best pitchers in '10, it'd be foolish to trade them.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 02:11 PM
Source?it was heavy chatter when he was dealt. kenny was taking a roblem off AZ's hands.

sullythered
12-14-2010, 02:13 PM
AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

Why the hell do we have a new thread EVERY DAY with somebody begging for us to trade one of our FOUR starting pitchers. We don't even really have a complete rotation right now, let alone the depth to move guys. Unless we are somehow getting a starting pitcher in return, it makes NO SENSE for us to move anyone from a position where we have no depth.

DirtySox
12-14-2010, 02:20 PM
it was heavy chatter when he was dealt. kenny was taking a roblem off AZ's hands.

We would have heard something about it by now if Arizona was paying part of his deal. 1st I've ever seen mention of it. I don't buy it at all.

Tragg
12-14-2010, 02:23 PM
With the Yankees missing out on Lee, they will probably get desperate to try to keep up with Boston. And if Pettitte decides to retire, they will be doubly desperate. Is it time to see about interest in Jackson or Floyd to gain a prospect or two (Montero) and also to free up cash to sign a couple of relievers?

I'll say this....given the absence of available free agent talent, it should be a SELLER'S market and if we are trading a starter, we darn well better get a bounty....not the usual 1 decent prospect and 2 organizational minor leaguers fodder.

Fenway
12-14-2010, 02:23 PM
WFAN reports NYY talking to the Cubs about

Carlos Zambrano

:rolling:

FielderJones
12-14-2010, 02:28 PM
Why the hell do we have a new thread EVERY DAY with somebody begging for us to trade one of our FOUR starting pitchers.

No kidding. And the OP asking for a prospect -- what the **** is that about? Why weaken the MLB club for a prospect after we just signed big money for sluggers to get the job done this year?

It has been pointed out over and over again that bullpens are a crapshoot. You do your homework and make your best guess and hope things work out. What body of work did Cliff Politte or Neal Cotts have prior to 2005? Nothing that would suggest the spectacular seasons they had that year, without which there is no World Series championship.

Moses_Scurry
12-14-2010, 02:29 PM
WFAN reports NYY talking to the Cubs about

Carlos Zambrano

:rolling:

I bet the cubs would fall all over themselves to trade Zambrano to the Yankees. The Yanks might be the only team desperate enough to take most, if not all, of that salary. The cubs won't get anything back player-wise, but they would be idiots to not do it as a pure salary dump.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 02:40 PM
WFAN reports NYY talking to the Cubs about

Carlos Zambrano

:rolling:i predicted this when he came back on a tear.

ewokpelts
12-14-2010, 02:47 PM
kenny got a budget increase from jerry. why the sudden need to dump starters?

trading danks or floyd is creating a hole for no other reason than NYY is desperate.

LITTLE NELL
12-14-2010, 02:48 PM
AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

Why the hell do we have a new thread EVERY DAY with somebody begging for us to trade one of our FOUR starting pitchers. We don't even really have a complete rotation right now, let alone the depth to move guys. Unless we are somehow getting a starting pitcher in return, it makes NO SENSE for us to move anyone from a position where we have no depth.

Could not have said it better myself. By signing Dunn and keeping PK and AJ the Sox are not in a rebuilding mode. They are trying to win a division and advance beyond. You don't trade away your starting pitching to do that.

Lip Man 1
12-14-2010, 02:49 PM
Agreed. Unless the Yanks are willing to part with two or three guys who can play of their big league roster, no thanks.

Lip

CPditka
12-14-2010, 03:14 PM
I dont think it will be one of our guys, but they are going to over pay to get someone via trade. The R. Martin signing makes me think that one of the young catchers are available. Especially Montero, which is about as big of a minor league chip you can have to trade.

asindc
12-14-2010, 03:22 PM
WFAN reports NYY talking to the Cubs about

Carlos Zambrano

:rolling:

This would be one case in which I hope the Cubs fleece the other team.


BTW, Nice sig pic.

TheVulture
12-14-2010, 03:55 PM
I realize we want to move Jackson because of his salary

We do?

NLaloosh
12-14-2010, 03:57 PM
The White Sox can't afford to trade any pitching. Last year, after a slow start, the offense was very good and actually finished near the top of the league.

The pitching was highly touted but very inconsistent and actually finished in the bottom half of the league. The pitching is what failed this team down the stretch when it counted- not the offense.

So far this offseason the Sox have added to the offense and lost pitching. They are definitely in need of pitching depth - starting and bullpen.

TheVulture
12-14-2010, 03:59 PM
His 14 million could be spent much more wisely (closer and a decent 4th starter).


I'm not sure 14 million would buy you a decent starter and a closer in today's market. Maybe a decent starter and a good middle man.

Red Barchetta
12-14-2010, 04:03 PM
AAAAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

Why the hell do we have a new thread EVERY DAY with somebody begging for us to trade one of our FOUR starting pitchers. We don't even really have a complete rotation right now, let alone the depth to move guys. Unless we are somehow getting a starting pitcher in return, it makes NO SENSE for us to move anyone from a position where we have no depth.

I agree. Even with the addition of Dunn to replace the Kotsay/Jones DH monster, we still lost Putz and potentially Jenks in our bullpen. Peavy is a big question mark and if he pitches any time in 2011 near his former capabilities, I will be happy.

I'm glad as the next fan that the SOX resigned Konerko and AJ, however we are not that much stronger on paper than last season. Better offensively, however weaker in relief pitching.

Corlose 15
12-14-2010, 04:38 PM
I realize we want to move Jackson because of his salary, but to me he is my #1 starter going into this season (as crazy as that sounds). He was our best pitcher from the minute he put on the Sox uniform last year. He was the most dominant guy we had.


Floyd or even Danks I would move before Jackson.

Now if Peavy is ready, then I can see us moving Jackson instead.

I think Jackson can be very good provided you monitor the number of pitches he throws. He threw 149 for the no-hitter in Tampa Bay and tired out after that and didn't do well. He came here, Coop modified his delivery and he was VERY good until he threw 129 against Cleveland because of bullpen injuries. He then seemed to tire and struggled for September.

A. Cavatica
12-14-2010, 05:28 PM
Buehrle for Swisher?

If Coop could fix Joba Chamberlain, then maybe the Yankees have the beginning of an interesting package. Otherwise...I can think of nobody I want.

asindc
12-14-2010, 05:31 PM
I think Jackson can be very good provided you monitor the number of pitches he throws. He threw 149 for the no-hitter in Tampa Bay and tired out after that and didn't do well. He came here, Coop modified his delivery and he was VERY good until he threw 129 against Cleveland because of bullpen injuries. He then seemed to tire and struggled for September.

Interesting observation. Well, considering that Joe Blanton (over $7 million yearly salary) has become a sought-after starting pitcher in this market, having Jackson as a 4th/5th starter is not so bad.

doublem23
12-14-2010, 05:38 PM
If Coop could fix Joba Chamberlain, then maybe the Yankees have the beginning of an interesting package. Otherwise...I can think of nobody I want.

The other guy in their system that is real interesting is Ivan Nova, 23-years-old, 6'4'', 210 lbs, and he brings some heat. He started, and won, Frank Thomas Day game against the Yanks and he was dialing it up into the high 90s.

He's just as much a project, though, definitely wouldn't deal a SP for a package centered on him. But as a throw-in? I could do that.

KMcMahon817
12-14-2010, 05:41 PM
I'm not sure 14 million would buy you a decent starter and a closer in today's market. Maybe a decent starter and a good middle man.

Meh. I bet you could get Soriano for ~8 million and a starter with similar numbers to Mark for ~7 million. The pitcher would probably have a lot more question marks that Buehrle, though.

Still not advocating for it at all. It is just probably our best option if the bank is truly "tapped out".

DirtySox
12-14-2010, 05:44 PM
The other guy in their system that is real interesting is Ivan Nova, 23-years-old, 6'4'', 210 lbs, and he brings some heat. He started, and won, Frank Thomas Day game against the Yanks and he was dialing it up into the high 90s.

He's just as much a project, though, definitely wouldn't deal a SP for a package centered on him. But as a throw-in? I could do that.

Nova is essentially seen as a back-end starter. He isn't anything too exciting, but indeed a decent throw-in. The Yankees have many intriguing names in their system as well. Montero of course, Romine, Banuelos, Heathcott, and Betances are all of interest.

A. Cavatica
12-14-2010, 05:58 PM
Nova is essentially seen as a back-end starter. He isn't anything too exciting, but indeed a decent throw-in. The Yankees have many intriguing names in their system as well. Montero of course, Romine, Banuelos, Heathcott, and Betances are all of interest.

Since we have to replace a catcher soon, and Flowers is no sure thing, I guess Montero would be worth looking at. Otherwise, our lineup is in pretty good shape.

But I can't see us going "all in" on a couple of power hitters and then blowing a huge hole in the starting rotation. We have no pitching depth at all.

WSox597
12-14-2010, 06:05 PM
Never help the Yankees, never. It's just common sense, or it should be to Sox fans.

They are the Evil Empire of baseball.

I hope the Cubs rip them off by unloading Zambrano on them. This may stop our manager from salivating over getting Zambrano on the White Sox somehow.

For once in my life, I'm rooting for the Cubs here. :D:

DumpJerry
12-14-2010, 06:25 PM
WFAN reports NYY talking to the Cubs about

Carlos Zambrano

:rolling:
I see nothing funny about that. In fact I could see Zambrano waiving his NTC to be reunited with Larry Rothschild if the Yankees say they will pick up the team option ($19,000,000) in the last year of the contract.

palehozenychicty
12-14-2010, 06:36 PM
I see nothing funny about that. In fact I could see Zambrano waiving his NTC to be reunited with Larry Rothschild if the Yankees say they will pick up the team option ($19,000,000) in the last year of the contract.

It is definitely possible.

EnglishChiSox
12-14-2010, 06:44 PM
They've just signed Mark Prior, they're sorted.

Brian26
12-14-2010, 07:12 PM
Never help the Yankees, never. It's just common sense, or it should be to Sox fans.

They are the Evil Empire of baseball.

I hope the Cubs rip them off by unloading Zambrano on them. This may stop our manager from salivating over getting Zambrano on the White Sox somehow.

For once in my life, I'm rooting for the Cubs here. :D:

I rather see the Cubs handcuffed with that mistake of a contract through its duration. No love lost for the Yankees here, but don't let Hendry the Clown off the hook that easily.

DSpivack
12-14-2010, 07:17 PM
They've just signed Mark Prior, they're sorted.

They signed Prior? Didn't know that...

I rather see the Cubs handcuffed with that mistake of a contract through its duration. No love lost for the Yankees here, but don't let Hendry the Clown off the hook that easily.

Now they're potentially after Zambrano, and had Kerry Wood last season who they could re-sign.

:rolling:

NLaloosh
12-14-2010, 07:40 PM
I see nothing funny about that. In fact I could see Zambrano waiving his NTC to be reunited with Larry Rothschild if the Yankees say they will pick up the team option ($19,000,000) in the last year of the contract.

I think it would be hilarious! It could be a reality show. Zambrano couldn"t keep it together in Chicago! Can you imagine the meltdowns in New York!

There's no way that he would last a full season in NY. He would end up in Bellevue by the AS break. It would be a riot to watch. I hope it happens.

DumpJerry
12-14-2010, 07:45 PM
I think it would be hilarious! It could be a reality show. Zambrano couldn"t keep it together in Chicago! Can you imagine the meltdowns in New York!

There's no way that he would last a full season in NY. He would end up in Bellevue by the AS break. It would be a riot to watch. I hope it happens.
He would be level headed in NY. Remember, he blew up because he was the only one on the Cubs who wanted to win. He won't have that problem with the Yanks.

guillensdisciple
12-14-2010, 07:59 PM
I would love to see Zambrano on the Sox. I honestly think he needs a winning atmosphere or a coach that understands him. We have both over here, and he's a guy that wants to win. Forget all the head problems, the guy is talented, and given the right opportunity he will succeed and do it big.

I wish there was a way the Sox could get him.

soltrain21
12-14-2010, 08:09 PM
I think it would be hilarious! It could be a reality show. Zambrano couldn"t keep it together in Chicago! Can you imagine the meltdowns in New York!

There's no way that he would last a full season in NY. He would end up in Bellevue by the AS break. It would be a riot to watch. I hope it happens.

He is fine now. He needed counseling and received it.

SoxNation05
12-14-2010, 08:22 PM
He is fine now. He needed counseling and received it.

Counseling will never help anyone let alone that nut job.

soltrain21
12-14-2010, 08:24 PM
Counseling will never help anyone let alone that nut job.

How in the **** would you know that? :rolleyes:

Fenway
12-14-2010, 08:25 PM
Fan Graphs looks at what is out there now


http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/what-the-cliff-lee-signing-means-for-new-york/


Boston Globe throws out another name Derek Lowe

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2010/12/playing_a_cliff_lee_fallout.html

Brian26
12-14-2010, 08:33 PM
Counseling will never help anyone let alone that nut job.

Do you even try to think before you type?

spawn
12-14-2010, 09:10 PM
Counseling will never help anyone let alone that nut job.
It helped me. :shrug:

DumpJerry
12-14-2010, 09:18 PM
Counseling will never help anyone let alone that nut job.
Never? Wow.

kittle42
12-14-2010, 09:22 PM
Counseling will never help anyone let alone that nut job.

CHICAGO TOUGH!

Seriously, what an ignorant statement.

sullythered
12-14-2010, 10:45 PM
Counseling will never help anyone let alone that nut job.

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and pile on here. That was a pretty ignorant statement, as counseling has helped me and several people that I love.

doublem23
12-14-2010, 11:31 PM
He would be level headed in NY. Remember, he blew up because he was the only one on the Cubs who wanted to win. He won't have that problem with the Yanks.

No he perceived he was the only one who wanted to win, and every time he perceived he was slighted, he blew a gasket like as 12-year-old. May as well ship him to New York with 24 radiation suits for when his warhead explodes.

Ranger
12-15-2010, 03:54 AM
Counseling will never help anyone let alone that nut job.

I sure hope it does. I've got an ex-girlfriend that is in desperate need of it.

I believe the key is to not skip your appointments.

khan
12-15-2010, 11:48 AM
Khan is going to have a field day with this.
Only because ill-informed opinions and factually incorrect statements are the quick road to ignorance. Again, I only respond to these sorts of posts when they contain factually incorrect assertions, NOT to make any one feel badly.

I realize we want to move Jackson because of his salary, but to me he is my #1 starter going into this season (as crazy as that sounds). He was our best pitcher from the minute he put on the Sox uniform last year. He was the most dominant guy we had.

Floyd or even Danks I would move before Jackson.
This is wrong on so many levels that I'll just suggest that you actually look at the splits and the game logs for Edwin Jackson and compare them to the other SPs in the rotation. [Here's a hint: One of the SPs had a lucky, unprecedented August, only to have a ****ty September, with a 5.23 ERA.]

Once you do that, and set aside the hype from the media and the front office, get back to us and tell us of your findings. Tell us if Edwin Jackson actually was the best pitcher for all of his 75 IP as the stupid media will have you believe, or if in reality, he had a lucky August, only to go back to his pants-crapping ways in September.

I think Jackson can be very good provided you monitor the number of pitches he throws. He threw 149 for the no-hitter in Tampa Bay and tired out after that and didn't do well. He came here, Coop modified his delivery and he was VERY good until he threw 129 against Cleveland because of bullpen injuries. He then seemed to tire and struggled for September.
I too think this is an interesting observation as well.

However, given his issues with control, and that he's more of a strikeout pitcher by nature, I don't believe he will consistently be an efficient SP. That is, one that keeps his pitch count down so as to prolong both the individual start AND increases his IP totals over the course of a season.

Moreover, in looking at his game logs, Edwin Jackson threw 110, 94, 103, 99, 105, and 103 pitches in September/October. In those 6 games, his K totals reverted back to being more in line with his other 2010 months, he gave up 4 or more runs in 4 of those games, and his WHIP went north of 1.4.

In sum, his August was a myth. A mirage. A statistical outlier that made his 2010 service with the SOX look a lot more effective than the reality. Again, this is not an opinion, these are the facts that are stated by his numbers:

http://stats.chron.com/mlb/playerstats.asp?id=7241&page=logs

Red Barchetta
12-15-2010, 12:09 PM
I would love to see Zambrano on the Sox. I honestly think he needs a winning atmosphere or a coach that understands him. We have both over here, and he's a guy that wants to win. Forget all the head problems, the guy is talented, and given the right opportunity he will succeed and do it big.

I wish there was a way the Sox could get him.

They could have easily gotten him last summer before they went after Jackson if they really wanted to. I'm sure during the height of the Zambrano rage incident, the Cubs would have made a deal to move him.

I know he likes Ozzie, however not sure if it would work over the couse of a season.

russ99
12-15-2010, 12:11 PM
Moreover, in looking at his game logs, Edwin Jackson threw 110, 94, 103, 99, 105, and 103 pitches in September/October. In those 6 games, his K totals reverted back to being more in line with his other 2010 months, he gave up 4 or more runs in 4 of those games, and his WHIP went north of 1.4.

In sum, his August was a myth. A mirage. A statistical outlier that made his 2010 service with the SOX look a lot more effective than the reality. Again, this is not an opinion, these are the facts that are stated by his numbers:

http://stats.chron.com/mlb/playerstats.asp?id=7241&page=logs

How was his August a myth? Was his first half with Detroit last year a myth too? Or those stretches that he put in with Tampa where he did well?

Reality - he pitched those innings, and recorded those numbers. And despite his poor first half in Arizona, he had a total of 21 quality starts in 33 game last year.

The guy has had stretches where he can be a dominant starter. There are other stretches where he didn't look as good, but was still average.

BTW: You can say that about every one of the Sox starters since Jose Contreras' postseason in 2005, ones who were paid more than the $8.35M Jackson is getting next year which seems to be the real beef here.

However, that doesn't automatically discount them as being capable starters, which Jackson undoubtedly is.

khan
12-15-2010, 12:45 PM
How was his August a myth? Was his first half with Detroit last year a myth too? Or those stretches that he put in with Tampa where he did well?
[Note the cherry-picking of a player's record to over-rate a player, rather than looking at a player's record in it's entirety. There are more examples of cherry-picking later on in Russ' post.]

Reality - he pitched those innings, and recorded those numbers. And despite his poor first half in Arizona, he had a total of 21 quality starts in 33 game last year.
Russ, this is again, factually incorrect. The statistic "Quality Start" is given to a pitcher who completes 6.0 or more IP, with 3 or fewer ER. According to the above link, he had 17 "non"-quality starts. That is, 17 starts in which he either failed to pitch 6.0 or more innings, or failed to limit his opposition to 3 or fewer ER. [Actually, you calling attention to this makes Jackson look WORSE, not better...]


The guy has had stretches where he can be a dominant starter. There are other stretches where he didn't look as good, but was still average.

BTW: You can say that about every one of the Sox starters since Jose Contreras' postseason in 2005, ones who were paid more than the $8.35M Jackson is getting next year which seems to be the real beef here.

However, that doesn't automatically discount them as being capable starters, which Jackson undoubtedly is.
1. Note the further cherry-picking.
2. Calling a pitcher "capable" is moving the goalposts from the earlier poster who tried to call Jackson "dominant."



Russ, it is said that excellence is a habit. It is what one ROUTINELY does. Unfortunately, mediocrity can be likewise. Excellence is NOT what one does in "stretches."


In other words, if you're amped up about Edwin Jackson, why aren't you amped up about Mike Macdougal, too? He had "stretches" where he was "dominant."

I mean, Mike MacDougal was virtually unhittable in the second half of 2006! In 2008, he was dominant! In July of 2010, his ERA was 0.00!

Why don't you advocate for Mike MacDougal to be [over]paid? Why not over rate him, too?

There are "stretches of dominance" for virtually every player in MLB. [Even Mike Macdougal, Brent Lillibridge, and yes, Edwin Jackson.]

The difference is that the excellent player, the "dominant" player doesn't just do it in "stretches." He's more regular with his outstanding performances. Unfortunately, neither Mike MacDougal nor Edwin Jackson are excellent players. Their track record proves it to be so.

KMcMahon817
12-15-2010, 01:05 PM
How was his August a myth? Was his first half with Detroit last year a myth too? Or those stretches that he put in with Tampa where he did well?

Reality - he pitched those innings, and recorded those numbers. And despite his poor first half in Arizona, he had a total of 21 quality starts in 33 game last year.

The guy has had stretches where he can be a dominant starter. There are other stretches where he didn't look as good, but was still average.

BTW: You can say that about every one of the Sox starters since Jose Contreras' postseason in 2005, ones who were paid more than the $8.35M Jackson is getting next year which seems to be the real beef here.

However, that doesn't automatically discount them as being capable starters, which Jackson undoubtedly is.

Every theory that Khan disagrees with is a "myth". It is just an easy way to escape an arguement and push his/her own opinion on others.

khan
12-15-2010, 01:14 PM
Every theory that Khan disagrees with is a "myth". It is just an easy way to escape an arguement and push his/her own opinion on others.
That's just it:

It isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that Jackson had 4 out of 6 months in 2010 where his ERA exceeded 5.00, it's a fact.

It isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that Jackson's so-called "dominant" month of August was against craptacular Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland, it's a fact.

It isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that even in Jackson's so-called "good" year of 2009 he sucked in the 2nd half; So much so that Detroit [like 2 other organizations before them] gave up on him.

And, it isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that Jackson had only 16 Quality Starts in 2010, it's a fact. [Unlike the incorrect number of 21 that Russ gave us earlier.]


Again, I'm all in favor of learning new things, and engaging in discussions of opinions based on reality and/or factual truth. Unfortunately, it isn't factual to call Jackson "dominant" for this club in 2010, or for any club, EVER.

I'll agree with russ that he [like ANY player in MLB] has had "stretches" of good play. But the facts of the matter [not my or ANYONE'S "theory" or "opinion"] are that Jackson isn't a good player.

JB98
12-15-2010, 02:08 PM
That's just it:

It isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that Jackson had 4 out of 6 months in 2010 where his ERA exceeded 5.00, it's a fact.

It isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that Jackson's so-called "dominant" month of August was against craptacular Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland, it's a fact.

It isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that even in Jackson's so-called "good" year of 2009 he sucked in the 2nd half; So much so that Detroit [like 2 other organizations before them] gave up on him.

And, it isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that Jackson had only 16 Quality Starts in 2010, it's a fact. [Unlike the incorrect number of 21 that Russ gave us earlier.]


Again, I'm all in favor of learning new things, and engaging in discussions of opinions based on reality and/or factual truth. Unfortunately, it isn't factual to call Jackson "dominant" for this club in 2010, or for any club, EVER.

I'll agree with russ that he [like ANY player in MLB] has had "stretches" of good play. But the facts of the matter [not my or ANYONE'S "theory" or "opinion"] are that Jackson isn't a good player.

I think Detroit moved him because of his salary more than anything else. He's overpaid, but the Sox can't afford to trade him right now.

Peavy is injured and can't be trusted to stay healthy. That means the club needs to hold on to Buehrle, Danks, Floyd and Jackson whether people like it or not.

SoxNation05
12-15-2010, 04:46 PM
That was great. I hope Zambrano doesn't leave the Cubbies.

russ99
12-15-2010, 05:03 PM
[Note the cherry-picking of a player's record to over-rate a player, rather than looking at a player's record in it's entirety. There are more examples of cherry-picking later on in Russ' post.]

Russ, this is again, factually incorrect. The statistic "Quality Start" is given to a pitcher who completes 6.0 or more IP, with 3 or fewer ER. According to the above link, he had 17 "non"-quality starts. That is, 17 starts in which he either failed to pitch 6.0 or more innings, or failed to limit his opposition to 3 or fewer ER. [Actually, you calling attention to this makes Jackson look WORSE, not better...]

1. Note the further cherry-picking.
2. Calling a pitcher "capable" is moving the goalposts from the earlier poster who tried to call Jackson "dominant."

Russ, it is said that excellence is a habit. It is what one ROUTINELY does. Unfortunately, mediocrity can be likewise. Excellence is NOT what one does in "stretches."

In other words, if you're amped up about Edwin Jackson, why aren't you amped up about Mike Macdougal, too? He had "stretches" where he was "dominant."

I mean, Mike MacDougal was virtually unhittable in the second half of 2006! In 2008, he was dominant! In July of 2010, his ERA was 0.00!

Why don't you advocate for Mike MacDougal to be [over]paid? Why not over rate him, too?

There are "stretches of dominance" for virtually every player in MLB. [Even Mike Macdougal, Brent Lillibridge, and yes, Edwin Jackson.]

The difference is that the excellent player, the "dominant" player doesn't just do it in "stretches." He's more regular with his outstanding performances. Unfortunately, neither Mike MacDougal nor Edwin Jackson are excellent players. Their track record proves it to be so.

What the heck is excellence in a starting pitcher anyway? As if we have a Cy Young candidate here at this point, even Peavy has his question marks. The last Cy Young winner here was Jack McDowell in 1993.

By the same measure, would anyone consider Peavy since he's been here, Buehrle, Danks or Floyd excellent by these same standards? I may be "cherry-picking" but you're holding guys to some impossible standard.

My point being that Jackson is a good mid-rotation starter. Do we really expect ace performance out of Jackson for inning-eater salary?

KMcMahon817
12-15-2010, 07:06 PM
That's just it:

It isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that Jackson had 4 out of 6 months in 2010 where his ERA exceeded 5.00, it's a fact.

It isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that Jackson's so-called "dominant" month of August was against craptacular Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland, it's a fact.

It isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that even in Jackson's so-called "good" year of 2009 he sucked in the 2nd half; So much so that Detroit [like 2 other organizations before them] gave up on him.

And, it isn't a "theory" or "opinion" that Jackson had only 16 Quality Starts in 2010, it's a fact. [Unlike the incorrect number of 21 that Russ gave us earlier.]


Again, I'm all in favor of learning new things, and engaging in discussions of opinions based on reality and/or factual truth. Unfortunately, it isn't factual to call Jackson "dominant" for this club in 2010, or for any club, EVER.

I'll agree with russ that he [like ANY player in MLB] has had "stretches" of good play. But the facts of the matter [not my or ANYONE'S "theory" or "opinion"] are that Jackson isn't a good player.


This.

That is just dumb. Is Jackson a million dollars or two overpaid? Maybe. Has he has stretches where he has been wildly inconsistent? Yes. Has he had command uses in his past? Yes. Did he have command issues with the SOX? No. Is anyone, besides LoveYourSuit, proclaiming that Jackson is the staff ace? No. Does Jackson have the ability to be an ace? Yes. Would any of the above questions and answers lead one to believe that "Jackson isn't a good player"? Only someone who has a vendetta against him.

Daver
12-15-2010, 07:19 PM
There is no one that posts here that can say any player is "overpaid", because much like ticket prices, players salaries are determined by what the market will bear. There is no magic stat based formula that GM's use when they bid on free agent players, and to try and use that non existent formula to determine any players value is ludicrous to say the very least.

I find it amusing that anyone here would presume to be the all knowing expert on baseball salaries.

KMcMahon817
12-15-2010, 07:55 PM
There is no one that posts here that can say any player is "overpaid", because much like ticket prices, players salaries are determined by what the market will bear. There is no magic stat based formula that GM's use when they bid on free agent players, and to try and use that non existent formula to determine any players value is ludicrous to say the very least.

I find it amusing that anyone here would presume to be the all knowing expert on baseball salaries.

While I don't necessary agree with some of what you said, I don't think Jackson is all that "overpaid". I was just referencing the constant harping of Jackson being "overpaid" that some posters never seem to give up.

Just curious, so under your logic, no player in the MLB gets paid more than what they deserve? Or in other words, their on-field performance doesn't meet the expectations of their salary? Meh.

TheVulture
12-15-2010, 08:03 PM
Meh. I bet you could get Soriano for ~8 million and a starter with similar numbers to Mark for ~7 million. The pitcher would probably have a lot more question marks that Buehrle, though.


The market has shown that just about any pitcher that is bankable for 200 innings year in year out goes for at least ten million a year in free agency.

A suitable Buehrle replacement, to me, would be someone like John Lackey. He's making over 15 mil/year. I'd say they are very comparable in terms of production, but I'd even give the edge to Buehrle due to durability...I can't think of anyone that I'd compare to Buehrle who has signed for anywhere close to 7 million recently.

I wouldn't be surprised if Soriano surpasses the 8 mil/yr mark, either.

KMcMahon817
12-15-2010, 08:13 PM
The market has shown that just about any pitcher that is bankable for 200 innings year in year out goes for at least ten million a year in free agency.

A suitable Buehrle replacement, to me, would be someone like John Lackey. He's making over 15 mil/year. I'd say they are very comparable in terms of production, but I'd even give the edge to Buehrle due to durability...I can't think of anyone that I'd compare to Buehrle who has signed for anywhere close to 7 million recently.

I wouldn't be surprised if Soriano surpasses the 8 mil/yr mark, either.

Hence the "question marks" statement....obviously you can't sign a guy who averages over 200 innings and 33 starts a year for 8 million. But, you could probably sign somebody for around 8 million that could give you similar number to Buehrle... .500 record, low to mid 4's ERA. So, that pitcher would have more question marks, but is likely just as productive, for half the price.

I am still not advocated for Buerhle to be traded in any way, shape or form. Just pointing out that his production is replaceable for much less money.

Soriano signed for under 8 million last year, but I also wouldn't be surprised to see him sign closer to 10.

Daver
12-15-2010, 08:58 PM
While I don't necessary agree with some of what you said, I don't think Jackson is all that "overpaid". I was just referencing the constant harping of Jackson being "overpaid" that some posters never seem to give up.


What don't you agree with?

Perhaps you have a copy of this stat based reference manual that all GM's use to put a value on talent?

KMcMahon817
12-15-2010, 09:04 PM
What don't you agree with?

Perhaps you have a copy of this stat based reference manual that all GM's use to put a value on talent?

I have no such thing. Nor do I see myself as anywhere near as expert on it. I enjoy this side of baseball; what's the harm in discussing it with other people who have the same interests?

I wish you would answer questions, but I guess you're too good for that.

I don't agree with your logic that no player in MLB in "overpaid". So what if the current market dictates the contract that they sign. That doesn't mean that a player who doesn't live up to their contract isn't overpaid.

But, I don't expect a logical response. Just some stupid one liner about mental masturbation.

Daver
12-15-2010, 09:23 PM
I have no such thing. Nor do I see myself as anywhere near as expert on it. I enjoy this side of baseball; what's the harm in discussing it with other people who have the same interests?

I wish you would answer questions, but I guess you're too good for that.

I don't agree with your logic that no player in MLB in "overpaid". So what if the current market dictates the contract that they sign. That doesn't mean that a player who doesn't live up to their contract isn't overpaid.

But, I don't expect a logical response. Just some stupid one liner about mental masturbation.

Nowhere did I say that I don't believe there are players being overpaid, what I said is that no one that posts here can say anyone is overpaid because of the nature of the free agent market, players are paid the value that they will bring in the market, based on performance from the previous season. Revisiting that after two seasons to say someone has not lived up to their perceived value really is mental masturbation, because it is history, it can't be altered.

The people that jump on things like this to prove how smart they are crack me up, but there is also a reason they are posting here and not working for an MLB team.

TheVulture
12-15-2010, 10:53 PM
Hence the "question marks" statement....obviously you can't sign a guy who averages over 200 innings and 33 starts a year for 8 million. But, you could probably sign somebody for around 8 million that could give you similar number to Buehrle...

Like who? All the guys I can think of who give you Mark Buehrle numbers and have a signed a free agent contract in the last few years are making 12-15 million a year.

khan
12-16-2010, 11:26 AM
What the heck is excellence in a starting pitcher anyway?

By the same measure, would anyone consider Peavy since he's been here, Buehrle, Danks or Floyd excellent by these same standards? I may be "cherry-picking" but you're holding guys to some impossible standard.

My point being that Jackson is a good mid-rotation starter. Do we really expect ace performance out of Jackson for inning-eater salary?
Russ, I took issue with your false report of Jackson having 21 Quality Starts out of 33 starts. That is factually incorrect.

I'll agree that "excellence" is a subjective measure. But, if YOU believe that a guy who had 4 months out of 6 with a >5.00 ERA "excellent," I suggest you re-assess your view. I suggest you look at the overall book of business by Jackson, and NOT "the stretches" of performance.

Again, he's had a sub-100 ERA+ for a career. An ERA+ of 100 means that the pitcher in question has been an "average" pitcher. However, as Jackson has not had a >100 ERA+ for a career, this indicates that he's probably not a "good mid-rotation starter." He's more likely to be an end-of-the-rotation type.

To your point about "innings-eater salary," his $8.35M is way out of line for the performances he's amassed over his career. In turn, this can hurt the White Sox and their ability to acquire other necessary pieces.

This.

That is just dumb. Is Jackson a million dollars or two overpaid? Maybe. Has he has stretches where he has been wildly inconsistent? Yes. Has he had command uses in his past? Yes. Did he have command issues with the SOX? No. Is anyone, besides LoveYourSuit, proclaiming that Jackson is the staff ace? No. Does Jackson have the ability to be an ace? Yes. Would any of the above questions and answers lead one to believe that "Jackson isn't a good player"? Only someone who has a vendetta against him.

Look, his ERA+ has been below 100 over the course of his career, which indicates he hasn't even an above-average pitcher. His one "good month" with the SOX came against three really crappy teams. His one "good year" was actually an EXCEPTIONAL 1st half, followed by a pants-crapping 2nd half.

None of these things are opinions or theories. They are unfortunate facts, whether we like them or not. I merely try to form my opinions based on fact, not on emotion or unfounded belief. [as much as possible]

As far as a "vendetta," Jackson is [right now] a White Sox player. A such, I will cheer him. He's even listed as my current favorite SOX player. But, I have my eyes wide open with respect to his abilities. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, his history shows that he is not a good player.

Again, his ERA+ indicates that he has been a below-average pitcher over a career. His inconsistency shows that he has not been "excellent," but merely good from time to time. Like it or not, these are the facts.

Add the below-average career performance to the inconsistency and the obese contract, and what you have is a player that isn't really helping the team as much as the media & front office might lead you to believe.

KMcMahon817
12-16-2010, 02:09 PM
Nowhere did I say that I don't believe there are players being overpaid, what I said is that no one that posts here can say anyone is overpaid because of the nature of the free agent market, players are paid the value that they will bring in the market, based on performance from the previous season. Revisiting that after two seasons to say someone has not lived up to their perceived value really is mental masturbation, because it is history, it can't be altered.

The people that jump on things like this to prove how smart they are crack me up, but there is also a reason they are posting here and not working for an MLB team.

It's a topic of discussion that some find enjoyable. I post here because I love White Sox baseball and I equally like the player management part of the game. I don't think there is any shame in discussing that with others who have similar interests and I doubt anyone is doing it to "prove how smart they are". It's a message board...

It's my dream job to work for an MLB team one day, Daver. Shoot for the moon right? I would venture a guess that there a few others on here with the similar aspirations.

KMcMahon817
12-16-2010, 02:18 PM
Like who? All the guys I can think of who give you Mark Buehrle numbers and have a signed a free agent contract in the last few years are making 12-15 million a year.

Westbrook, Vazquez, Garland have all signed deals at or under 8 million so far this off season and hardly all the chips have fallen. As mentioned before, Buehrle is more durable and reliable than these three. But they have given similar statistics over the past three seasons.

Joel Pinero signed for 2 years @ 16 last off season. Again, less reliable, but probably better numbers over the past few seasons.

Just a few examples. But, I love Buehrle as much as the next guy and I hope he spends the rest of his career is SOX jersey.