PDA

View Full Version : Paul Byrd


Iguana775
07-30-2002, 12:36 AM
i just watch the highlights for the KC game and i have got to say that i would love to see byrd in a sox uni. he just pitched his 4TH STRAIGHT CG!! i wish we signed him instead of trading for the worthless ritchie last year. wtg, kenny!!

danman31
07-30-2002, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Iguana775
i just watch the highlights for the KC game and i have got to say that i would love to see byrd in a sox uni.I would like to see Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., and Roy Oswalt in a Sox uniform, and Sammy Sosa in a Devil Rays uniform, but that isn't happening any time soon is it?! Sorry, not to make fun of you, but with this management we are only going to sign past-their-prime players that weren't superstars to begin with(i.e. Lofton, Alomar)

:lofton :sandy
"Who, us?"

Iguana775
07-30-2002, 08:42 AM
i know that there is no way the sox would spend the money, or he would even leave KC. just doing a little wishful thinking.

SI1020
07-30-2002, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by Iguana775
i know that there is no way the sox would spend the money, or he would even leave KC. just doing a little wishful thinking. I'm wondering what happened in KC that made Byrd such a tough pitcher? Did the pitching coach there work wonders with him or did he do it all by himself?

hold2dibber
07-30-2002, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by danman31
I would like to see Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Jr., and Roy Oswalt in a Sox uniform, and Sammy Sosa in a Devil Rays uniform, but that isn't happening any time soon is it?! Sorry, not to make fun of you, but with this management we are only going to sign past-their-prime players that weren't superstars to begin with(i.e. Lofton, Alomar)


Actually, that's why Byrd would have seemed like a guy the Sox would be interested in last year - he's been around and been kind of up and down in his career, mostly due to health, and he was dirt cheap (I believe he's making less than $1 mm this year).

He is a great example of the kind of quality pitching available to smart GMs for cheap. It is total hindsight, I know, and unfair for me to suggest that KW should have made the following moves, but he could have had the following rotation for much cheaper than the rotation we have this year:

Buehrle
Byrd
K. Wells
Garland
Fogg

I don't know if we'd be 14 games better, but I'm quite certain we'd have a better record than we have now. And I believe that rotation would be significantly cheaper than the one we have now. Baldwin was also available for way cheap, he was a great clubhouse guy, and he has been better than any of our starters this year other than Buehrle.

Randar68
07-30-2002, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Buehrle
Byrd
K. Wells
Garland
Fogg

I don't know if we'd be 14 games better, but I'm quite certain we'd have a better record than we have now. And I believe that rotation would be significantly cheaper than the one we have now. Baldwin was also available for way cheap, he was a great clubhouse guy, and he has been better than any of our starters this year other than Buehrle.


I guarantee you that Wells would never have had this type of season in a Sox Uni. Nardi cussing in his ear and a DH would have inflated his number a lot. He still craps his pants on occassion in Pittsburg. Fogg, who knows. I doubt he would have been given the chance to beat out either Glover or Wright, so it may be moot. At the time of the trade, he was the one I thought we'd end up missing the most in the long run. We'll see.

hold2dibber
07-30-2002, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Randar68



I guarantee you that Wells would never have had this type of season in a Sox Uni. Nardi cussing in his ear and a DH would have inflated his number a lot. He still craps his pants on occassion in Pittsburg. Fogg, who knows. I doubt he would have been given the chance to beat out either Glover or Wright, so it may be moot. At the time of the trade, he was the one I thought we'd end up missing the most in the long run. We'll see.

You may be right - it is, obviously, hard to say. However, even if he wasn't as good as he's been for the Bucs, I find it very hard to believe that he would not have been better than Ritchie has been; and for way, way cheaper. As to Fogg, I was really excited about him after his performance for the Sox last September. I think he would have battled his way into the rotation, just like Buehrle did last season. He and Buehrle are great examples of the Sox being lousy evaluators of pitching talent - they look at a pitcher's ability to throw, not at a pitcher's ability to pitch.

I guess when you have a wonderful pitching coach like Nardi, you figure you'll be able to turn great throwers into great pitchers.

Randar68
07-30-2002, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber


You may be right - it is, obviously, hard to say. However, even if he wasn't as good as he's been for the Bucs, I find it very hard to believe that he would not have been better than Ritchie has been; and for way, way cheaper. As to Fogg, I was really excited about him after his performance for the Sox last September. I think he would have battled his way into the rotation, just like Buehrle did last season. He and Buehrle are great examples of the Sox being lousy evaluators of pitching talent - they look at a pitcher's ability to throw, not at a pitcher's ability to pitch.
[/COLOR]

Actually, the Sox were high on Buehrle from the start of his pro career. The reason he was started out as a releiver was because he came stright from AA and needed to face big league hitters. They handled him better than they handled just about anyone else I can remember in terms of allowing his ability/success to dictate his progression.

hold2dibber
07-30-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


Actually, the Sox were high on Buehrle from the start of his pro career. The reason he was started out as a releiver was because he came stright from AA and needed to face big league hitters. They handled him better than they handled just about anyone else I can remember in terms of allowing his ability/success to dictate his progression.

I may not have been sufficiently "tuned in" at the time, but I don't remember much hype about Buehrle from the organization when he was coming up through the minors.

And I think it was smart to start Buehrle in the bullpen when he came up in 2000, but based upon his performance in 2000, I thought he should have been penciled into the rotation in 2001. Instead, the battle for the 5th spot in spring training 2001 was, all along, billed as Garland vs. K. Wells and Buehrle was gonna be in the pen. Buehrle won the job because he pitched the best, but I don't think the Sox expected him to earn it - they thought Wells and Garland were better/more ready.

Randar68
07-30-2002, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
they thought Wells and Garland were better/more ready.

And at the time, both had significantly more pro experience and both had time at AAA previously. IIRC, it was only about a year and a half from the time he signed until the time he made the big leagues, so there was little opportunity to "hype" him. He and Rocky were both highly regarded inside the Sox organization before making the big leagues straight from AA.

MarkEdward
07-30-2002, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


Actually, the Sox were high on Buehrle from the start of his pro career. The reason he was started out as a releiver was because he came stright from AA and needed to face big league hitters. They handled him better than they handled just about anyone else I can remember in terms of allowing his ability/success to dictate his progression.


IMO, that's how all our young pitchers should be handled. Not being called up from AA, but beginning their MLB careers in the bullpen. Garland worked in the pen last year, and he's pitching well. I wish Wright began in the pen (ir worked some AAA games), but we're stuck with a struggling young starter who might not recover. If Rauch makes the Sox next year, he should begin in the pen.

bullsn2007
07-30-2002, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by SI1020
I'm wondering what happened in KC that made Byrd such a tough pitcher? Did the pitching coach there work wonders with him or did he do it all by himself?

I am from KC, so I read stuff every day about Byrd...

Last year, around the time the Royals acquired him for Jose Santiago, he developed a screwball to go along with his 243 other different pitches. He mainly uses the screwball and his cut fastball. Now he has been able to get both right handed and left handed hitters out.

Iwritecode
07-30-2002, 12:42 PM
First of all, there's really no way anyone could have known at the beginning of the year that Ritchie would suck this bad and Byrd would be this good. Their career stats were almost identical. Second of all, inter-divisional trades are very rare. What would have happened if we had to face Wells and Fogg 7 or 8 combined times this year when playing against KC?