PDA

View Full Version : Phil Rogers is an idiot (On John Danks)


1908<2005
02-06-2011, 05:22 AM
Here's the article (dumb):
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/sc-spt-0206-notes-rogers-baseball--20110205,0,6563579.column

Found this blog post to be funny:
http://startcalebhanie.blogspot.com/2011/02/phil-rogers-is-idiot-part-3245.html

SI1020
02-06-2011, 09:01 AM
It's not the first time.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-12-24/sports/0612240227_1_gm-williams-john-danks-general-manager-ken-williams

Brian26
02-06-2011, 09:52 AM
For the record, the first few paragraphs of that article are a synopsis of a longer column he wrote earlier in the week.

Within the context of the original article, the trade proposal isn't bad. In the first article, he talked about Danks & Teahen for Montero, Chamberlein, Mitre and Granderson. I don't think it's a horrible idea. Montero would take over for AJ in two years, Chamberlein could be our next Contreras project, and Granderson could spell Pierre or Quentin.

Danks may be gone in two years. It would be a gamble to trade him, but its not the worst trade idea he's ever thrown at the wall.

cards press box
02-06-2011, 10:53 AM
What aggravates people about Phil Rogers' columns, I think, is the sheer lack of reporting on the White Sox. All he seems to do is speculate on what makes sense to him. Rogers, for example, was on the MLB Network as a "baseball insider" last week and he talked about the Sox' extension of Alexei Ramirez. He said that the Sox might consider batting Ramirez leadoff and moving Juan Pierre to ninth in the batting order. In his 2/2/11 column (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2011/02/your-morning-phil-pujols-lou-cuban-missile.html), Rogers makes the same suggestion but this time prefaces it with the acknowledgement that no one asked him for this opinion. And that is exactly the point. Rogers gives his own opinion but doesn't seem to have a handle on what the club is actually thinking.

In his Danks column, Rogers just gives his opinion about a trade that he thinks would make sense. Any of us could do the exact same thing. In fact, there are many threads in WTS in which we do exactly that: raise the possibility of possible moves and debate the merits of such moves. Readers expect baseball writers -- including columnists -- to do more than that (i.e., actually be a journalist and find out what is going on).

On the bright side, Rogers isn't as obnoxious as Jay Mariotti with his speculation. Rogers is much closer to Sam Smith, the former Bulls writer who went through a period where he seemed to propose a trade a week, none of which ever happened.

russ99
02-06-2011, 11:47 AM
Maybe Phil wants the Sox to deal key veterans for prospects so he has more interesting things to write about in his Sox prospect reports in BA.

This idea makes zero sense for a team trying to win now. This discussion could be valid if the Sox are on the way to a 90 loss season at the end of June, but hopefully that doesn't happen.

TomBradley72
02-06-2011, 11:52 AM
Maybe Phil wants the Sox to deal key veterans for prospects so he has more interesting things to write about in his Sox prospect reports in BA.

This idea makes zero sense for a team trying to win now. This discussion could be valid if the Sox are on the way to a 90 loss season at the end of June, but hopefully that doesn't happen.

Exactly. Trading Danks when you have him locked up for 2 years- and you're clearly "going for it" while you have Buehrle, Konerko, AJ, etc. is idiocy.

Why does Phil waste half a page on this bull****? Like his proposed "trade" of GM's. Spring training starts in a few weeks- there are so many legitimate topics to discuss- ridiculous trade proposals that will never happen is just lazy journalism.

mzh
02-06-2011, 11:55 AM
In addition to trading Danks and Teahen for something good, I also think we should trade Ramon Castro for Doc Halladay. Get it done Kenny!!!

DumpJerry
02-06-2011, 12:44 PM
Why is Rogers so concerned with the Yankess? Please don't tell me he does this to show how the Yanks can build up the Sox farm system. Prospects are always less desirable than a proven product unless that product is 41 years old coming off knee replacement surgery. You never really know what you're getting with a prospect until he is in The Show.

thomas35forever
02-06-2011, 01:53 PM
Yeah, I don't think the Sox are interested in helping out the Evil Empire. If they stumble this year, well that's just a goddamn shame.

Dan H
02-06-2011, 02:47 PM
I don't see why the White Sox should do anything to help the Yankees. Rogers should keep his speculations to himself. Another bad column.

Bucky F. Dent
02-06-2011, 02:51 PM
There is a very good reason why I don't read Phil Rogers. He's a moron!

Frater Perdurabo
02-06-2011, 04:09 PM
I think Rogers is pointing out that if the Sox are so inclined, KW could take advantage of the Yankees weakness, in a deal that might set the team back slightly for 2011, but might set them up for longer term success. He's not saying the Sox SHOULD do it, but merely that they might come out ahead if they could make the Yankees overpay.

IIRC, Rogers has always advocated that teams are built for long-term success through the draft and shrewd trades; he's not a big fan of "all in" trades of multiple quality prospects for one year of a star player. It's a philosophical difference over which reasonable and intelligent people can agree.

I would not want the Sox to trade a starting pitcher to the Yankees this year, but just because Phil Rogers and I disagree does not make Phil Rogers an idiot.

tebman
02-06-2011, 09:38 PM
Rogers is still trying to justify his characterization of the McCarthy-for-Danks trade a few years ago as part of a "despicable plan." (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-12-24/sports/0612240227_1_gm-williams-john-danks-general-manager-ken-williams)

Why don't those guys at the Tribune just go back to shilling for the Cubs, which they did so well for so many years. They should stick to their skill set.

slavko
02-06-2011, 10:52 PM
Rogers is still trying to justify his characterization of the McCarthy-for-Danks trade a few years ago as part of a "despicable plan." (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-12-24/sports/0612240227_1_gm-williams-john-danks-general-manager-ken-williams)

Why don't those guys at the Tribune just go back to shilling for the Cubs, which they did so well for so many years. They should stick to their skill set.

To his credit, the story said that McC should have been traded for Alex Rios instead of Danks. Blind squirrel found a nut. Look, he's told to write a story, he has no news to report, so he makes up ****. You, I and Phil all wish he was a better writer. He is good to laugh at. Thanks for the link.

Lip Man 1
02-06-2011, 11:14 PM
Phil continues to believe that the way to win long-term is to do so with a good minor league system and top prospects.

I totally, completely and forever disagree with him 100% but I respect that he at least is consistent. He writes the same lament every two weeks or so....fortunately he doesn't run the White Sox because if the Sox took his approach and turned into the Tampa Bay Rays for a decade, the franchise would be playing in front of empty seats and crickets or even doing so in another city.

Prospects are great...for trading for guys who have in fact done the job at the highest level of play in my opinion.

Chicago should be in a "win now" mode EVERY year, Chicago isn't Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Tampa or San Diego...never was, never should be.

Lip

soltrain21
02-07-2011, 12:05 AM
Phil continues to believe that the way to win long-term is to do so with a good minor league system and top prospects.

I totally, completely and forever disagree with him 100% but I respect that he at least is consistent. He writes the same lament every two weeks or so....fortunately he doesn't run the White Sox because if the Sox took his approach and turned into the Tampa Bay Rays for a decade, the franchise would be playing in front of empty seats and crickets or even doing so in another city.

Prospects are great...for trading for guys who have in fact done the job at the highest level of play in my opinion.

Chicago should be in a "win now" mode EVERY year, Chicago isn't Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Tampa or San Diego...never was, never should be.

Lip

Why can't you have both? It doesn't have to be one extreme for another. There is absolutely zero reason for our minors to be as bad as they are.

JB98
02-07-2011, 12:46 AM
Phil continues to believe that the way to win long-term is to do so with a good minor league system and top prospects.

I totally, completely and forever disagree with him 100% but I respect that he at least is consistent. He writes the same lament every two weeks or so....fortunately he doesn't run the White Sox because if the Sox took his approach and turned into the Tampa Bay Rays for a decade, the franchise would be playing in front of empty seats and crickets or even doing so in another city.

Prospects are great...for trading for guys who have in fact done the job at the highest level of play in my opinion.

Chicago should be in a "win now" mode EVERY year, Chicago isn't Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Tampa or San Diego...never was, never should be.

Lip

That belief really is at the heart of almost everything Phil writes. He's a prospect guy. The GM of the White Sox is not. Phil has deep philosophical differences with Kenny. As a result, his columns tend to be overly critical of the Sox.

Foulke You
02-07-2011, 09:48 AM
Why can't you have both? It doesn't have to be one extreme for another. There is absolutely zero reason for our minors to be as bad as they are.
I happen to agree that the best course is both. I like the method they have been using lately of supplementing the proven MLB talent with a sprinkling of young guys here and there. We aren't completely devoid of young talent. Gordon Beckham, Chris Sale, Brent Morel, and maybe even Dayan Viciedo should be helping the MLB club for years to come. When you start to make wholesale changes to your lineup of nothing but prospects, you risk becoming what the Cleveland Indians or KC Royals are right now and Lip is right, you would be playing to half empty stadiums if that was the path they chose.

cheezheadsoxfan
02-07-2011, 10:51 AM
Rogers is still trying to justify his characterization of the McCarthy-for-Danks trade a few years ago as part of a "despicable plan." (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-12-24/sports/0612240227_1_gm-williams-john-danks-general-manager-ken-williams)

Why don't those guys at the Tribune just go back to shilling for the Cubs, which they did so well for so many years. They should stick to their skill set.

Ah yes, the famous "polished workhorse" column. :rolleyes:

SOXSINCE'70
02-07-2011, 11:20 AM
In addition to trading Danks and Teahen for something good, I also think we should trade Ramon Castro for Doc Halladay. Get it done Kenny!!!

The Sox should also trade a bag of old baseballs for the spirits of Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris. :roflmao:

Whitesox029
02-07-2011, 05:16 PM
at least he doesn't sound as silly as Mike Downey did about 7 months after he wrote this column:
Link (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-03-15/sports/0503150250_1_white-sox-and-cubs-chicago-baseball-fan-sosa-and-alou)
Half right ain't too shabby I guess.

Tragg
02-07-2011, 06:32 PM
I get the idea; you always have to be planning for the future.
And this "helping the Yankees" stuff...most quality trades are win-win.
But trading our top starter is, well, risky.
I would just caution against chasing catching prospects....the price is too high for them and for elite catchers. Get someone who can play the position defensively, and get your elite hitters in the OF, 1B et al...more judicious use of resources.

BringHomeDaBacon
02-08-2011, 05:29 PM
All of the impartial analysis of this article that I have read agrees that Rogers is an idiot because the deal is too one-sided in favor of the White Sox.

russ99
02-08-2011, 06:15 PM
All of the impartial analysis of this article that I have read agrees that Rogers is an idiot because the deal is too one-sided in favor of the White Sox.

Well, yeah, obviously. Taken at face value assuming the Sox would consider that, it's a total steal.

IMO the "Rogers is an idiot" is assuming the Sox would break up an "all-in" team for prospects to help the Yankees.

doublem23
02-08-2011, 09:08 PM
All of the impartial analysis of this article that I have read agrees that Rogers is an idiot because the deal is too one-sided in favor of the White Sox.

lol what

Sell low on Quentin, trade away our best SP all in return for 2 "top-tier" prospects from a farm system that's far and away the league leader in overhyped, undertalented players and a couple of burnouts? All of this to help a team we'd probably have to go through to sniff at the World Series?

Look, I get that you like to be the "edgy guy" who likes to go against the grain or be the antithesis to the WSI groupthink, but really... Try harder.

SI1020
02-08-2011, 09:12 PM
Why can't you have both? It doesn't have to be one extreme for another. There is absolutely zero reason for our minors to be as bad as they are. I agree. Even if you believe that propects are only good as trade bait for proven players, don't you need to have decent prospects to make it work?

DirtySox
02-08-2011, 09:27 PM
Why can't you have both? It doesn't have to be one extreme for another. There is absolutely zero reason for our minors to be as bad as they are.

I agree. Even if you believe that propects are only good as trade bait for proven players, don't you need to have decent prospects to make it work?

Spot on with both. I've been beating that drum for quite some time. So many around here champion the "WIN NOW" attitude (which is fine), but having a good farm system is only going to aid in that pursuit. It's silly to completely dismiss it.

Lip Man 1
02-09-2011, 12:27 AM
Dirty:

Don't the Sox have that?

Look at the list of "prospects" that Kenny has dealt over say ten years. Look at how many of those actually accomplished something in the big leagues with another team.

Kenny is getting back a pretty good return for guys who are basically overhyped mediocrities. He has a good track record of fleecing other clubs.

Can the farm system be better? Sure...should it be better? Of course.

But as long as Kenny continues to screw opposing G.M.'s into taking our stiffs things aren't as bad as some might say.

Lip

DSpivack
02-09-2011, 12:37 AM
Dirty:

Don't the Sox have that?

Look at the list of "prospects" that Kenny has dealt over say ten years. Look at how many of those actually accomplished something in the big leagues with another team.

Kenny is getting back a pretty good return for guys who are basically overhyped mediocrities. He has a good track record of fleecing other clubs.

Can the farm system be better? Sure...should it be better? Of course.

But as long as Kenny continues to screw opposing G.M.'s into taking our stiffs things aren't as bad as some might say.

Lip

I think the thought there is that the Sox farm system has gotten worse over the years and there just aren't as many prospects to trade away now as there has been in the past. Yes, these things come and go, but in 2000 the farm was rated number 1, then [from my memory] it was more towards the middle, and now it's at the bottom.

It's not a zero sum game; you can scout and draft well and develop players, even if the organizational philosophy at the top is to then deal those youngsters for more veteran talent.

BringHomeDaBacon
02-09-2011, 06:18 AM
lol what

Sell low on Quentin, trade away our best SP all in return for 2 "top-tier" prospects from a farm system that's far and away the league leader in overhyped, undertalented players and a couple of burnouts? All of this to help a team we'd probably have to go through to sniff at the World Series?

Look, I get that you like to be the "edgy guy" who likes to go against the grain or be the antithesis to the WSI groupthink, but really... Try harder.

Try harder to do what? I didn't say that I liked the trade or even comment its merit. The reason is because like you and most everyone else around here I know next to nothing about the minor league players involved other than the fact that one of them is the most highly regarded catching prospect in quite awhile and was requested in the Cliff Lee discussions. I'm sure that there is some combination of prospects out there that would be worth trading away Danks and Quentin. If this would be it, I don't know and neither do you. Go ahead and keep pretending like you do if that makes you feel better.

DirtySox
02-09-2011, 09:24 AM
I think the thought there is that the Sox farm system has gotten worse over the years and there just aren't as many prospects to trade away now as there has been in the past. Yes, these things come and go, but in 2000 the farm was rated number 1, then [from my memory] it was more towards the middle, and now it's at the bottom.

It's not a zero sum game; you can scout and draft well and develop players, even if the organizational philosophy at the top is to then deal those youngsters for more veteran talent.

Yar. That.

And Lip, I'd argue that Kenny hasn't fleeced someone for a while now.

SI1020
02-09-2011, 10:15 AM
It's ridiculous to think you can get by year after year "fleecing" your fellow GM's. You've got nothing much to offer, eventually you get the same in return. The White Sox are never going to buy their way into pennant contention like the Yankees and Red Sox try to do. Honestly, I can't see the logic behind the argument that says the Sox don't need to successfully draft, sign and develop young talent.

Lip Man 1
02-09-2011, 10:36 AM
SI1020:

I never said the Sox didn't need to draft better or develop better (in order to trade better) did I?

I DID say that things aren't as bad as some are making it out to be given what Kenny has done over a decade... trading many of these guys who haven't done a thing at the big league level...for guys who have contributed to the White Sox having seven winning seasons, two post season appearances and a World Series title since he took over in November 2000.

Lip

BringHomeDaBacon
02-09-2011, 08:23 PM
SI1020:

I never said the Sox didn't need to draft better or develop better (in order to trade better) did I?

I DID say that things aren't as bad as some are making it out to be given what Kenny has done over a decade... trading many of these guys who haven't done a thing at the big league level...for guys who have contributed to the White Sox having seven winning seasons, two post season appearances and a World Series title since he took over in November 2000.

Lip

AL Central payroll rank:

01: 2
02: 2
03: 2
04: 1
05: 1
06: 1
07: 1
08: 2
09: 2
10: 2

Obviously the World Series title is great, but two post-season appearances during that span is not impressive.

Lip Man 1
02-09-2011, 08:46 PM
Bacon:

As I wrote in my historical stories on the "Sox and the Media" they have never been able to figure out how to dominate the division like the Red Sox and Yankees have done in the East. They are the only one of the pre expansion original 16 franchises to have NEVER made the post season in back to back years.

That doesn't mean however that if they had a strong farm system or hung on to such "studs" as Royce Ring, Lance Broadway, Josh Fields or Brian Anderson that things would be any different. In fact, I'd wager they'd be worse.

The mention of two post season appearances was simply part of pointing out the complete body of work under Kenny. Also the payroll number is somewhat misleading since it's not like every other team in the division was ranked in the bottom of the league. In the 90's Cleveland had one of the top payrolls in baseball, Detroit has been among the highest since 2006 and Minnesota had a payroll last year only a few million less than the Sox.

It's not like the Sox are spending 95 million and everybody else in the division 30 million.

Lip

doublem23
02-10-2011, 03:26 AM
That doesn't mean however that if they had a strong farm system or hung on to such "studs" as Royce Ring, Lance Broadway, Josh Fields or Brian Anderson that things would be any different. In fact, I'd wager they'd be worse.

I don't see how you can defend that statement at all considering we've seen FIRST-HAND how valuable a strong farm system can be to teams. How do you think the Twins, who have had significantly less resources than us, not only compete but usually beat us? They have a strong farm system and are able to plug guys into their MLB roster almost seamlessly. Oh, since they value "stupid things" like drafting, scouting, and player development, they've been able to produce players like Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, and Johan Santana in the past decade, any of whom would be the best player the Sox have had since the Big Hurt's prime 15 years ago.

You're argument really falls apart when you start calling guys like Ring, Broadway, Fields, and Anderson studs. Just because they were drafted highly by the Sox, doesn't mean they're any good. That's more indicative of how either stupid or cheap the Sox are when it comes to the draft. Anderson was the closest to a "stud" prospect, but even he only topped out at #37 on BA's Top 100 list in 100. The rest of these guys were pretty much viewed as organizational filler by... oh, probably 29 other teams. Only we were dumb enough to draft them high.

The state of the Sox farm system is so indefensibly bad that it's downright ludicrous that anyone would actually attempt to defend it. The only 2 players of any value the Sox have developed over the past 10 years were 2 really good players that luckily fell right in our lap, Beckham and Sale, but even they're still pretty solid wildcards who could easily fall flat on their face in 2011 and then, great, we have absolutely nothing to show for a decade of player development since the days of Buehrle, Crede, Rowand, and Garland. That is simply pathetic.

NLaloosh
02-10-2011, 04:13 AM
When I saw the lunacy of the headline of the article I didn"t want to bother to read it. What a joke, the Sox have an abundance of starting pitching?

In fact, it's the complete opposite. It's their biggest need and area of least depth. The Sox can't afford to trade a starter anymore than they can afford to trade Alexei Ramirez.

Lastly, why would they trade their BEST starter? Are the Sox rebuilding this year? What planet is Phil Rodgers living on ? Why does this guy have a job?

Seriously, he needs to take time off for mental evaluation. The Sox clearly and publicly raise payroll to new highs to go all out to win this year and he writes a column suggesting that they trade their best young starting pitcher so that they could possibly fleece the Yankees.

Whatever media outlet he writes for needs to replace him with someone competent and with some credibility.

russ99
02-10-2011, 08:59 AM
I don't see how you can defend that statement at all considering we've seen FIRST-HAND how valuable a strong farm system can be to teams. How do you think the Twins, who have had significantly less resources than us, not only compete but usually beat us? They have a strong farm system and are able to plug guys into their MLB roster almost seamlessly. Oh, since they value "stupid things" like drafting, scouting, and player development, they've been able to produce players like Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, and Johan Santana in the past decade, any of whom would be the best player the Sox have had since the Big Hurt's prime 15 years ago.

You're argument really falls apart when you start calling guys like Ring, Broadway, Fields, and Anderson studs. Just because they were drafted highly by the Sox, doesn't mean they're any good. That's more indicative of how either stupid or cheap the Sox are when it comes to the draft. Anderson was the closest to a "stud" prospect, but even he only topped out at #37 on BA's Top 100 list in 100. The rest of these guys were pretty much viewed as organizational filler by... oh, probably 29 other teams. Only we were dumb enough to draft them high.

The state of the Sox farm system is so indefensibly bad that it's downright ludicrous that anyone would actually attempt to defend it. The only 2 players of any value the Sox have developed over the past 10 years were 2 really good players that luckily fell right in our lap, Beckham and Sale, but even they're still pretty solid wildcards who could easily fall flat on their face in 2011 and then, great, we have absolutely nothing to show for a decade of player development since the days of Buehrle, Crede, Rowand, and Garland. That is simply pathetic.

Sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement.

How many years have the Twins been touted for their farm system? And how many of them became quality players the last few years? Mauer and Morneau are the exceptions, not the expected results. Most of the Twins' good players came from other teams.

Also, the Twins built their system out of necessity because they couldn't spend for free agents. Now with the new ballpark, things are a lot different.

The overall quality of the farm system doesn't make teams successful, if it did, the Pirates, Royals and Marlins would be playoff teams. It's the top 1% of the farm team that produces quality players.

BTW: Our top 1% prospects have looked pretty good the last couple of years.

doublem23
02-10-2011, 09:05 AM
BTW: Our top 1% prospects have looked pretty good the last couple of years.

Gordon Beckham's 86 OPS+ in 2010 was super!

:thumbsup:

Look, nobody here is saying we'd rather have an awesome farm system and a 70-win MLB club (a la the Royals) but I don't think it's asking too much for the Sox's farm system to be a bit better than, oh, the laughingstock of the league. I know KW's persistently in a "win-now" mode, and that's fine, but you can't afford to be that brazen and then go and draft guys like Lance Broadway in the 1st round. Something has to give eventually and we're at that breaking point now. The Sox literally cannot afford 1 injury this upcoming season, else their $140 M investment will be soured because there is literally not one player you could promote from within in an emergency and not expect them to be an atrocious nightmare.

Lip Man 1
02-10-2011, 11:14 AM
Double:

I apologize for the misconception. My fault in the way it was worded. "Studs" should have been in teal.

My point was that given the state of the players the Sox have drafted overall, it's amazing what they have been able to get done.

I agree they should have a better system, I don't know why they can't, although Daver has more knowledge of this area than I do.

I do know though that based on the recent (under KW) history and as someone else already pointed out in the thread about JR's recent attendence / financial comments, that every time the Sox say they are "tapped out," they go out and sign / acquire another expensive player.

My thinking is that unless they are hit by a rash of major injuries which destroys a season (like in say 2001) if something happens they'll go out and get someone at the deadline. It's just illogical to extend yourself, and risk it all because of an injury. They'll come up with the money needed to find a fix.

Again sorry for the confusion.

Lip

SI1020
02-10-2011, 11:25 AM
My point was that given the state of the players the Sox have drafted overall, it's amazing what they have been able to get done.

I agree they should have a better system, I don't know why they can't, although Daver has more knowledge of this area than I do.
Lip On these two points we can definitely agree.

NLaloosh
02-10-2011, 09:02 PM
It's ridiculous to think you can get by year after year "fleecing" your fellow GM's. You've got nothing much to offer, eventually you get the same in return. The White Sox are never going to buy their way into pennant contention like the Yankees and Red Sox try to do. Honestly, I can't see the logic behind the argument that says the Sox don't need to successfully draft, sign and develop young talent.

I don't know. It must feel great to be fleeced by Kenny Williams because the GM's in San Diego and Arizona can't stop smiling :D:

Lip Man 1
02-12-2011, 10:46 AM
In San Diego seriously?

OK

No disrespect to Clayton Richard (the only guy to make an impact, pitching in the ultimate pitchers park) but if you like guys in the Sox rotation who had a hard time going past the fifth inning with a high ERA, we'll than I guess Clayton was the man for the job.

And the jury is still out on Hudson. Let's wait more than a half season playing under zero pressure before we decide anything OK?

Lip

soltrain21
02-12-2011, 11:06 AM
In San Diego seriously?

OK

No disrespect to Clayton Richard (the only guy to make an impact, pitching in the ultimate pitchers park) but if you like guys in the Sox rotation who had a hard time going past the fifth inning with a high ERA, we'll than I guess Clayton was the man for the job.

And the jury is still out on Hudson. Let's wait more than a half season playing under zero pressure before we decide anything OK?

Lip

So, there is no pressure in going out there as a rookie trying to show you belong in the big leagues?

Lip Man 1
02-12-2011, 12:36 PM
The pressure is far different when you know a pennant isn't on the line.

Lip

JB98
02-12-2011, 12:59 PM
Richard and Hudson are both MLB-caliber pitchers, but neither are anything more than middle-of-the-rotation starters. Guys like that are replaceable.

It's interesting. When Richard and Hudson were on the club, quite a few fans hated them for their inability to pitch deep into ballgames. Now that they've been traded, it's "Damn you, KW! How could you trade this elite young talent?!!"

soltrain21
02-12-2011, 01:06 PM
The pressure is far different when you know a pennant isn't on the line.

Lip

How do you know that?

SI1020
02-12-2011, 04:49 PM
Richard and Hudson are both MLB-caliber pitchers, but neither are anything more than middle-of-the-rotation starters. Guys like that are replaceable.

It's interesting. When Richard and Hudson were on the club, quite a few fans hated them for their inability to pitch deep into ballgames. Now that they've been traded, it's "Damn you, KW! How could you trade this elite young talent?!!" In today's pitching poor landscape decent middle of the rotation guys are hard to find. I thought Richard was a back end of the rotation kind of guy, and Hudson not even that good. Even if Hudson never does anything else the Diamondbacks got more out of him than I ever thought he had. My question is why are other organizations able to develop players from the Sox minor league system better than the Sox are?

Lip Man 1
02-12-2011, 04:50 PM
Logic and simple human nature plus the fact that I've actually talked to a number of big league pitchers who have told me in essence the same thing. Sure there's "pressure" on you to stay in the big leagues (but it's nothing to what it was 30, 40, 50 years ago because of more teams, less talent and expansion.)

There's is no pressure like the pressure that comes from having to produce down the stretch in a drive to make the postseason. Some guys can handle it, some guys can't.

Lip

DumpJerry
02-12-2011, 05:01 PM
Logic and simple human nature plus the fact that I've actually talked to a number of big league pitchers who have told me in essence the same thing. Sure there's "pressure" on you to stay in the big leagues (but it's nothing to what it was 30, 40, 50 years ago because of more teams, less talent and expansion.)

There's is no pressure like the pressure that comes from having to produce down the stretch in a drive to make the postseason. Some guys can handle it, some guys can't.

Lip
It has been said that pitching for a contender in September means one inning feels like two innings on the body.

asindc
02-12-2011, 05:06 PM
In today's pitching poor landscape decent middle of the rotation guys are hard to find. I thought Richard was a back end of the rotation kind of guy, and Hudson not even that good. Even if Hudson never does anything else the Diamondbacks got more out of him than I ever thought he had. My question is why are other organizations able to develop players from the Sox minor league system better than the Sox are?

While you are wondering that, I'm wondering why Arizona could not develop Quentin as well as the Sox have, or why Seattle did not develop Thornton as well as the Sox have, or why Texas did not develop Danks as well as the Sox have, or why Philly did not develop Floyd as well as the Sox have, or...

SI1020
02-12-2011, 07:52 PM
While you are wondering that, I'm wondering why Arizona could not develop Quentin as well as the Sox have, or why Seattle did not develop Thornton as well as the Sox have, or why Texas did not develop Danks as well as the Sox have, or why Philly did not develop Floyd as well as the Sox have, or... I must admit that is an excellent retort. I don't follow those other teams you listed like I do the Sox, so I really don't how well they do or don't develop their young talent. I do find the Sox to be lacking in that department. Living in the south, I try to follow the Charlotte and Birmingham teams as much as possible. The Hudson situation left me surprised and dismayed. I thought he had great stuff, but a tendency to pitch with way too much caution at the first sign of trouble. Not only that but he was for the most part a 5 or 6 inning pitcher. Then he goes to Arizona and he's cranking out one good start after another and going deep into games. What did the Diamondbacks know or do differently?

HaroMaster87
02-12-2011, 08:43 PM
Well, I guess this kind of goes with the general topic of the thread/article. Are we going to be able to re-sign this guy? He seems to be evasive when questioned on the topic. I heard Danks on the Score with Rongey and he was very neutral and non-committal. I'd hate to lose Danks.

BringHomeDaBacon
02-12-2011, 10:17 PM
Richard and Hudson are both MLB-caliber pitchers, but neither are anything more than middle-of-the-rotation starters. Guys like that are replaceable.

It's interesting. When Richard and Hudson were on the club, quite a few fans hated them for their inability to pitch deep into ballgames. Now that they've been traded, it's "Damn you, KW! How could you trade this elite young talent?!!"

Based on the free agent market the last few years, I find this to be a ridiculous statement. In fact I would argue the exact opposite. One look at the contracts doled out over the last few years to aging mediocre starters the last few years should tell you that young cheap starting pitching under team control is the most valuable commodity in baseball.

KenBerryGrab
02-13-2011, 06:51 AM
In today's pitching poor landscape decent middle of the rotation guys are hard to find. I thought Richard was a back end of the rotation kind of guy, and Hudson not even that good. Even if Hudson never does anything else the Diamondbacks got more out of him than I ever thought he had. My question is why are other organizations able to develop players from the Sox minor league system better than the Sox are?

For one, they are pitching in the National League West.

SI1020
02-13-2011, 09:16 AM
For one, they are pitching in the National League West. That NL/AL argument has gotten quite old with me. It's all MLB. I remember a time when the AL couldn't beg, borrow or buy a win against the NL in the All star game. The gap between the two leagues is greatly exaggerated IMHO.

Tragg
02-13-2011, 09:48 AM
Richard and Hudson are both MLB-caliber pitchers, but neither are anything more than middle-of-the-rotation starters. Guys like that are replaceable.

It's interesting. When Richard and Hudson were on the club, quite a few fans hated them for their inability to pitch deep into ballgames. Now that they've been traded, it's "Damn you, KW! How could you trade this elite young talent?!!"
Not all of us were dogging them when they were here.
People expect pitchers to shine first out. It's an absurd expectation.
Anyway, if we wanted to trade Danks for prospects, we'd have been far, far better off keeping our prospect named Hudson and not trading for Jackson. (we'd have been better of not trading him anyway, but that's a different discussion).

TheVulture
02-13-2011, 11:48 PM
As bad as the sox are supposed to be developing talent, it seems like there is a lot of former sox prospects in MLB.

doublem23
02-13-2011, 11:54 PM
While you are wondering that, I'm wondering why Arizona could not develop Quentin as well as the Sox have, or why Seattle did not develop Thornton as well as the Sox have, or why Texas did not develop Danks as well as the Sox have, or why Philly did not develop Floyd as well as the Sox have, or...

Well the answer to the Quentin question isn't so much that the Diamondbacks couldn't develop him (he put up monster numbers for their minor league teams), they just recognized that he's made of glass and can't stay on the field.

Floyd and certainly Thornton were products of excellent Sox coaching, and Danks, well, that was just a steal. Quentin, on the other hand, the question wasn't can this guy hit at the MLB level, it was, can this guy stay on the field for more than 1/2 a season?

rdivaldi
02-14-2011, 10:42 AM
That NL/AL argument has gotten quite old with me. It's all MLB.

One league has a DH, the other league has a pitcher batting. There's a huge difference. Pitching in the NL is much, much easier than the AL.

rdivaldi
02-14-2011, 10:46 AM
How many years have the Twins been touted for their farm system? And how many of them became quality players the last few years? Mauer and Morneau are the exceptions, not the expected results. Most of the Twins' good players came from other teams.

Shhhhhhh, you'll burst too many bubbles of those who worship at the Twinkie prospect altar...

trilobite_hives
02-14-2011, 12:08 PM
at least he doesn't sound as silly as Mike Downey did about 7 months after he wrote this column:
Link (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-03-15/sports/0503150250_1_white-sox-and-cubs-chicago-baseball-fan-sosa-and-alou)
Half right ain't too shabby I guess.

Man, that was a great read. I know hindsight is 20/20 and all that, but this is still awesome.

NLaloosh
02-15-2011, 02:28 PM
In San Diego seriously?

OK

No disrespect to Clayton Richard (the only guy to make an impact, pitching in the ultimate pitchers park) but if you like guys in the Sox rotation who had a hard time going past the fifth inning with a high ERA, we'll than I guess Clayton was the man for the job.

And the jury is still out on Hudson. Let's wait more than a half season playing under zero pressure before we decide anything OK?

Lip

What are talking about Lip? In San Diego they unloaded a fortune in salary by dumping Peavy and got back enough young talent in return to have a great year, nearly make the playoffs and save a ton of payroll. They couldn't be happier.

You can question what Richard might have done with the Sox but he was excellent for the Padres and that's what matters to them - maybe it's easier pitching in the NL and at Petco :wink:.

And, if they ever get any production out of the other pitchers it will just be gravy for them!

It's one thing to question what these guys might have done had they stuck with the Sox but you can't question what Hudson did for Arizona. He dominated once he went there so YES they are very happy.

Are you happy with what Peavy has done for the Sox? Are the Sox happy with the performance they've gotten from Peavy for the money they've paid him?

Lip Man 1
02-15-2011, 03:54 PM
Yes to both questions. Peavy even injured, (and his injury last year was a complete fluke according to the folks who should know the Sox and doctors) has a better track record for a team trying to win now.

Hudson did not look particularly good for the Sox. I realize it was a small sample. I also know he's pitching in a much easier league and was under ZERO pressure last year pitching for a garbage club.

Clayton Richard with the Sox, again I mean no disrespect, but if you want a four / five inning pitcher with an ERA of over five, than he's the guy for you. Oh and in case you forgot Petco is the ultimate pitchers park in baseball.

Talk to me in two or three years if Hudson and / or Richard becomes a consistent 14-16 game winner. Until then nobody can make any long term predictions on how those deals will turn out. Oh again by the way, I LOVE how the other three stiffs San Diego got in the deal are doing, don't you?

Lip

NLaloosh
02-15-2011, 04:52 PM
Yes to both questions. Peavy even injured, (and his injury last year was a complete fluke according to the folks who should know the Sox and doctors) has a better track record for a team trying to win now.

Hudson did not look particularly good for the Sox. I realize it was a small sample. I also know he's pitching in a much easier league and was under ZERO pressure last year pitching for a garbage club.

Clayton Richard with the Sox, again I mean no disrespect, but if you want a four / five inning pitcher with an ERA of over five, than he's the guy for you. Oh and in case you forgot Petco is the ultimate pitchers park in baseball.

Talk to me in two or three years if Hudson and / or Richard becomes a consistent 14-16 game winner. Until then nobody can make any long term predictions on how those deals will turn out. Oh again by the way, I LOVE how the other three stiffs San Diego got in the deal are doing, don't you?

Lip


That's my point, Lip. Petco ultimate pitcher's park. Hmmm...who isn;t pitching there anymore?

You're not listening to what I said. The Padres are happy because they are way ahead of where they would have been with Peavy and his massive contract. The Diamondbacks are happy because they are way ahead of where the were with a crappy Edwin Jackson making much more money and about to be a FA and now have a guy that was almost unbeatable last year and will cost almost nothing for the next several years. Those two teams are way better off.

I didn't hear you say that the Sox are happy with the return on their investment so far on Peavy. I didn't hear you say that you are happy with Peavy's Sox performance.

You just keep talking about how players might play in reversed roles or what may happen sometime in the future. As of now, those teams are way way ahead on these deals.

And, if Peavy doesn't pitch most of this season and at a high level then it will look even more lopsided because the Sox will be all-in with their highest payroll ever and will miss the playoffs because of an injury prone pitcher with such an enormous contract that it hampered the Sox investing in more pitching.

We'll see. I hope Peavy wins the Cy Young and Dunn is the MVP and the Sox win the World Series.

BringHomeDaBacon
02-15-2011, 04:57 PM
Yes to both questions. Peavy even injured, (and his injury last year was a complete fluke according to the folks who should know the Sox and doctors) has a better track record for a team trying to win now.

Hudson did not look particularly good for the Sox. I realize it was a small sample. I also know he's pitching in a much easier league and was under ZERO pressure last year pitching for a garbage club.

Clayton Richard with the Sox, again I mean no disrespect, but if you want a four / five inning pitcher with an ERA of over five, than he's the guy for you. Oh and in case you forgot Petco is the ultimate pitchers park in baseball.

Talk to me in two or three years if Hudson and / or Richard becomes a consistent 14-16 game winner. Until then nobody can make any long term predictions on how those deals will turn out. Oh again by the way, I LOVE how the other three stiffs San Diego got in the deal are doing, don't you?

Lip

Let me know when Peavy becomes a consistent 14-16 game winner. Richard won 14 last year while Peavy hasn't won that many since 2007 and has only won that many twice in his career. Over that last three years, Peavy has won 26 games or only one more than Richard over that same time span.

As for Hudson, he was 7-1 for a team that was otherwise 58-96. The way people around here talk, you would think every other NL starter had a 1.69 ERA and .84 WHIP.

Lip Man 1
02-15-2011, 05:23 PM
The best answer I can give to you both comes from Scott Merkin at whitesox.com answering a question along these same lines from a fan:

"I'll ask Robin the same question I ask everyone who criticizes Williams for trading his young players. Name the youngsters who have flourished since Williams traded them away.
Clayton Richard? Yes, but the White Sox received Peavy for him. Daniel Hudson? I thought he would have turned out solid in the AL, but picking up Jackson is not a bad trade-off. Gio Gonzalez and Chris Young both fall in this category, but not exactly a bad track record when you consider Williams' plethora of moves over the past decade Remember, young players are there to help build the team or to be moved to help build the team through trades."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Assuming the team stays healthy they look to be good for another 88-92 win season. I'll take that any day of the week and twice on Sunday as opposed to rolling the dice with kids.

That's just my opinion.

Now feel free to tell me about the other three stiffs the Sox gave up to San Diego? LOL.

Lip

Lip Man 1
02-15-2011, 05:27 PM
Laloosh says: "As of now, those teams are way way ahead on these deals."

True...they'll be laughing all the way to the bank while their teams are in 3rd or 4th place, lucky to win 82 games.

:rolleyes:

Lip

doublem23
02-15-2011, 05:57 PM
Laloosh says: "As of now, those teams are way way ahead on these deals."

True...they'll be laughing all the way to the bank while their teams are in 3rd or 4th place, lucky to win 82 games.

:rolleyes:

Lip

That might be the Sox, too, so I wouldn't speak too soon.

soltrain21
02-15-2011, 06:17 PM
The best answer I can give to you both comes from Scott Merkin at whitesox.com answering a question along these same lines from a fan:

"I'll ask Robin the same question I ask everyone who criticizes Williams for trading his young players. Name the youngsters who have flourished since Williams traded them away.
Clayton Richard? Yes, but the White Sox received Peavy for him. Daniel Hudson? I thought he would have turned out solid in the AL, but picking up Jackson is not a bad trade-off. Gio Gonzalez and Chris Young both fall in this category, but not exactly a bad track record when you consider Williams' plethora of moves over the past decade Remember, young players are there to help build the team or to be moved to help build the team through trades."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Assuming the team stays healthy they look to be good for another 88-92 win season. I'll take that any day of the week and twice on Sunday as opposed to rolling the dice with kids.

That's just my opinion.

Now feel free to tell me about the other three stiffs the Sox gave up to San Diego? LOL.

Lip

And you can tell me what, exactly, Jake Peavy has done for us.

mzh
02-15-2011, 06:38 PM
And you can tell me what, exactly, Jake Peavy has done for us.
I base my opinion on what we know for a fact.

We KNOW that Peavy can put up Cy Young numbers. We saw it the last 3 starts of 09 and a few spots in 10.

We KNOW that Clayton Richard often has trouble getting out of the 4th or 5th inning.

We KNOW that Peavy CAN put up top of the rotation numbers, and we KNOW he can do it against the AL (sub 3.00 ERA in interleague play).

We KNOW that it took the help of the best pitchers park in baseball for Richard to just put up middle-rotation numbers.

We KNOW that despite spending the majority of his career in that ballpark, Peavy's away ERA is still better than Richard's career ERA.

Just my take on things.

DirtySox
02-15-2011, 06:44 PM
I base my opinion on what we know for a fact.

We KNOW that Peavy can put up Cy Young numbers. We saw it the last 3 starts of 09 and a few spots in 10.

We KNOW that Clayton Richard often has trouble getting out of the 4th or 5th inning.

We KNOW that Peavy CAN put up top of the rotation numbers, and we KNOW he can do it against the AL (sub 3.00 ERA in interleague play).

We KNOW that it took the help of the best pitchers park in baseball for Richard to just put up middle-rotation numbers.

We KNOW that despite spending the majority of his career in that ballpark, Peavy's away ERA is still better than Richard's career ERA.

Just my take on things.

All fine and good, but his actual contribution to the White Sox thus far has been rather minimal.

soltrain21
02-15-2011, 06:47 PM
I base my opinion on what we know for a fact.

We KNOW that Peavy can put up Cy Young numbers. We saw it the last 3 starts of 09 and a few spots in 10.

We KNOW that Clayton Richard often has trouble getting out of the 4th or 5th inning.

We KNOW that Peavy CAN put up top of the rotation numbers, and we KNOW he can do it against the AL (sub 3.00 ERA in interleague play).

We KNOW that it took the help of the best pitchers park in baseball for Richard to just put up middle-rotation numbers.

We KNOW that despite spending the majority of his career in that ballpark, Peavy's away ERA is still better than Richard's career ERA.

Just my take on things.

I don't hate the Peavy trade. I just think the "it was a completely awesome trade" train needs to slow down a little.

We KNOW Peavy is injury prone.

We KNOW he costs quite a bit of money.

We DON'T KNOW how he is going to bounce back from his injury.

We KNOW, since Lip brought it up earlier about pitching in a pennant race and the playoffs is a different type of pressure than not pitching in the playoffs or a pennant race, that Peavy isn't good in the playoffs.

Lip Man 1
02-15-2011, 06:48 PM
Double:

Anything is possible especially if injuries decimate the club like in 2001 and 2004. However at this point in time I think you'll agree the Sox chances look a lot brighter, a LOT brighter than Arizona's or San Diego's for this season.

Lip

mzh
02-15-2011, 06:49 PM
All fine and good, but his actual contribution to the White Sox thus far has been rather minimal.
This is true, but we're talking about what Peavy might do in 2011 when he is not on the disabled list, and I find it easier to base my opinion on completely known entities.

There are always unknowns that are, surprisingly unknowable. They work out both ways. Maybe the league figures out Clayton Richard and he returns to being an average 4-5 pitcher, and Peavy returns from injury stronger than ever and dominates the league. Or maybe Richard figures something out and totally dominated the league, while Peavy never fully heals and can never live up to his mouth. That's the fun about sports, eh? :gulp:

mzh
02-15-2011, 06:54 PM
I don't hate the Peavy trade. I just think the "it was a completely awesome trade" train needs to slow down a little.

We KNOW Peavy is injury prone.

We KNOW he costs quite a bit of money.

We DON'T KNOW how he is going to bounce back from his injury.

We KNOW, since Lip brought it up earlier about pitching in a pennant race and the playoffs is a different type of pressure than not pitching in the playoffs or a pennant race, that Peavy isn't good in the playoffs.
This is also true. As I said in my above posts, the unknowns are part of the fun of baseball. We do know that Peavy is injury prone, but maybe he plays a full season for the first time in several years. We just don't, and can't know!

We can know what both players have done in the past, but if Peavy pitches the Sox to a World Series this year but then once again can't stay healthy, was it a "good" trade? As of right now, based on what I know, I still like the trade. Maybe that will change after this year, maybe it won't. At this point, less than 2 months away from the season, I'd prefer to just wait and see.

rdivaldi
02-15-2011, 11:14 PM
Maybe the league figures out Clayton Richard and he returns to being an average 4-5 pitcher Uh, when did Clayton Richard ever stop being an average, end of the rotation pitcher? Clayton is a great guy to root for, but his numbers are skewed drastically by his home ballpark.

SOXSINCE'70
02-17-2011, 07:25 PM
Did anyone see Phil the Phake's column today?? He claims Ozzie Smith played his entire career with the Cardinals. NOT QUITE!! Smith was traded to the Cards for Garry Templeton after the '81 season, IIRC. He then helped the Cards outlast Harvey's Wallbangers (Brewers) in the '82 series, 4 games to 3.

cards press box
02-17-2011, 10:42 PM
And you can tell me what, exactly, Jake Peavy has done for us.

All fine and good, but his actual contribution to the White Sox thus far has been rather minimal.

Peavy got hurt -- that doesn't make him a bad pitcher. Peavy actually pitched quite well in the month before he suffered the lat muscle injury. Beyond that, it is very possible that the surgery will make Peavy's motion more fluid and more effective. A while back, a surgeon called the Score and explained that the surgical procedure and rehab will make Peavy's lat stronger than it was pre-injury.

So, let's see what happens. I have a good feeling that Peavy will have a fine year.

DirtySox
02-17-2011, 11:13 PM
Peavy got hurt -- that doesn't make him a bad pitcher. Peavy actually pitched quite well in the month before he suffered the lat muscle injury. Beyond that, it is very possible that the surgery will make Peavy's motion more fluid and more effective. A while back, a surgeon called the Score and explained that the surgical procedure and rehab will make Peavy's lat stronger than it was pre-injury.

So, let's see what happens. I have a good feeling that Peavy will have a fine year.

I didn't state that him being hurt makes him bad, but he certainly hasn't contributed much value-wise.

SI1020
02-18-2011, 08:41 AM
One league has a DH, the other league has a pitcher batting. There's a huge difference. Pitching in the NL is much, much easier than the AL. I'll go with easier and leave the much much out.

BringHomeDaBacon
02-18-2011, 06:54 PM
I didn't state that him being hurt makes him bad, but he certainly hasn't contributed much value-wise.

When San Diego sent Jake Peavy to the White Sox, they returned the favor of being sent LaMarr Hoyt back in 1985. San Diego got one good season out of Hoyt, we'll see what if anything Peavy can provide.