PDA

View Full Version : For all of the stockpiling of pitchers...


Tragg
08-23-2002, 11:09 PM
by Scheuler for 10 years and really by williams (although he used 2 of his in a most unfortunate trade) has yielded exactly one dependable pitcher - Buerhle. I suppose Foulke too (although not per JM) and maybe marte. I couldn't even describe any other pitcher as average.
And when we dumped this year, what did we get? More minor league pitchers.
What, exactly, has this philosophy gotten us?

RKMeibalane
08-23-2002, 11:22 PM
The talent is there, but this talent is not being developed. Some of the Sox's more recent pitching troubles can be traced back to one person...

:nardi

"I hold the record for most pitchers who suffer a serious arm injury in a single season."

Jerry_Manuel
08-23-2002, 11:26 PM
Here's how it works.

The Sox stockpile guys in the hope that if you have 10, one is going to be good. When they trade one of the 10, everyone has a crap attack. If they don't trade one of the 10, then we get people who complain about bad young pitching.

guillen4life13
08-23-2002, 11:39 PM
it's virtually impossible to satisfy every fan, even if you are winning a world series and you aren't a fan of a team owned by george steinbrenner.

the sox had quite a foundation for an awesome pitching staff. we also had nardi. putting the two together apparently equals a whole bunch of injured arms and/or awesome pitchers when they aren't wearin a sox uni.

Tragg
08-24-2002, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Here's how it works.

The Sox stockpile guys in the hope that if you have 10, one is going to be good. When they trade one of the 10, everyone has a crap attack. If they don't trade one of the 10, then we get people who complain about bad young pitching.

That's true - 1/10 seems about what we can expect (for draftees and low minor league players). The question is, is that sufficient return to continue to dump veterans, to continue to use copious numbers of high draft choices on them? Is that the way to run a baseball team?
Another problem is that white sox management seems to have no idea who the "one" is, even when the reach AAA. Pretty obvious in the Ritchie trade, when Fogg and and maybe Wells are that "one out of 10". I guess we can expect 20 straight Johnny Ruffins now.

34 Inch Stick
08-24-2002, 01:59 PM
The Todd Ritchie trade was bad because Ritchie has sucked the big one.

I would reserve judgement until at least the end of the year as to wether old Kipper and Fogg are going to be great. Those losses and ERA's are starting to rise.

BuehrleACE56
08-24-2002, 02:40 PM
well i think that stockpiling young arms cant be viewed as a bad thing. when it does become a bad philosophy is when you dont use this resource to it's advantages. when you have a bunch of young talent, you can expect one or two to develop into something special without too much work (i.e. Buehrle). but it's the other 8/10 or 9/10 that need coaching, minor league experience, and some struggle to become good. our problem is that we have crap coaching at all levels, we rush them out of the minors with lots of hype, and then trade them before they've really been given a decent chance to blossom or show what they got. stockpiling all the talent in the world won't bear fruit without some work. also, trading young talent for average "veterans" who are just past their prime is never a good philosophy.

WhiteSox = Life
08-24-2002, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
The Todd Ritchie trade was bad because Ritchie has sucked the big one.

I would reserve judgement until at least the end of the year as to wether old Kipper and Fogg are going to be great. Those losses and ERA's are starting to rise.

Exactly what might "the big one" mean? :smile:

Right now, we cannot say whether or not Kip or Fogg are going to be great pitchers since they've only played one year away from Nardi. However, we can say that the trade did suck because Kip and Fogg are experiencing moderate success while Richie is experiencing... "the big one", I guess.

And the reason their ERA's are rising is quite simple. Fogg had never started in the Majors before and was immediately put in the starting lineup en route to Pittsburgh. Kip on the other hand, had had quite a bit of time in the Majors, but the the reason he's starting a fade a bit is as follows: He's pitched 20 innings more this year than he has last year and last year he had 20 starts; this year, he's had 26. His ERA is still far better than it ever was and this year he hasn't had to worry about being put in the bullpen at the "Tinkerer's" whim.

Kip Wells Stats
Year Starts IP ERA
2001 20 155.2 4.79
2002 26 133.1 3.70

Will either one ever evolve into a number 1 starter? I don't think so. I do believe that both can be solid starters for quite some time, while Ritchie, well, we all know.

:ritchie
"NO! NO! NOT THE BIG ONE!"

Lip Man 1
08-24-2002, 09:48 PM
Originall posted by Tragg:

What, exactly, has this philosophy gotten us?

Answer: It's saved Jerry Reinsdorf millions since he doesn't and won't spend for top quality pitching with long term contracts. The fact that they haven't produced or won squat is meaningless to him

"The only thing rookies do is get managers fired..."--Casey Stengel