PDA

View Full Version : Sox Notes (Jimenez, Byrd, etc.)


Unregistered
11-23-2002, 11:26 PM
from phil rogers:Strength in numbers: The quiet trade the White Sox made for D'Angelo Jimenez (sending catcher Humberto Quintero and outfielder Alex Fernandez to San Diego last July) seems better all the time. Jimenez is hitting like he did when he was ranked as a top prospect with the Yankees.

Jimenez, 25, is batting .333 with four homers, 18 RBIs and a 1.002 OPS in his first 16 games in the Dominican League. He's the likely replacement for Ray Durham at second base but could wind up moving to shortstop in 2004, when Jose Valentin probably won't be back.

Willie Harris is not the only other intriguing option at second base. Following a disappointing season at Triple A, 24-year-old Tim Hummel has regained his stroke. He hit .413 in the second half of the season in the Arizona Fall League and had an RBI single in Saturday's championship game..

Josh Stewart, who was the winner in Peoria's 7-1 title-game victory, and David Sanders are two lefties who have put themselves into the mix for jobs on the Sox's pitching staff next spring. Sanders, who helped Birmingham win a Southern League title, could join Damaso Marte and either Kelly Wunsch or Mike Porzio to give the Sox three lefties in the bullpen. Stewart led the AFL with a 0.81 ERA.

Sanders and Stewart were among eight pitchers added to the White Sox's 40-man roster last week. They have 24 pitchers on the roster, matching Tampa Bay for the highest figure in the majors. Colorado (12), Atlanta (15) and Boston (15) have the fewest.

here's the link: MLB Report (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-021123insidebaseball,0,1737567.story?coll=cs%2Dhom e%2Dheadlines)

also, about the Royals lack of spending and the signing of Byrd:
That decision makes it unlikely the Royals will be able to re-sign Paul Byrd, who has gotten attention from the White Sox and many other clubs, and may ultimately prompt All-Star first baseman Mike Sweeney to exercise an out clause in his contract after 2003. This is not progress.

kermittheefrog
11-24-2002, 03:01 AM
I really really hope we stay away from Byrd. He is another Todd Ritchie waiting to happen. He's 32, he doesn't throw hard or get a lot of strike outs. He's thrown 200 innings just twice and is very homer prone. Over the last couple seasons he's had good control and kept runs off the board but he's a huge risk. Keep him away.

awesomefan
11-24-2002, 05:09 AM
Kermit: I like that phrase "Homer Prone" as long as it doesn't apply to a White Sox pitcher.

guillen4life13
11-24-2002, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by awesomefan
Kermit: I like that phrase "Homer Prone" as long as it doesn't apply to a White Sox pitcher.

Well let's hope you keep liking it when it refers to Paul Byrd.

RedPinStripes
11-24-2002, 11:03 AM
I didnt know Byrd was that old. That changes my thoughts on him.

The way KC is going, they might as well move that team. They're just a stat pad for MLB teams.

oldcomiskey
11-24-2002, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I really really hope we stay away from Byrd. He is another Todd Ritchie waiting to happen. He's 32, he doesn't throw hard or get a lot of strike outs. He's thrown 200 innings just twice and is very homer prone. Over the last couple seasons he's had good control and kept runs off the board but he's a huge risk. Keep him away.
One could say the same thing about Greg Maddux too

jeremyb1
11-24-2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I really really hope we stay away from Byrd. He is another Todd Ritchie waiting to happen. He's 32, he doesn't throw hard or get a lot of strike outs. He's thrown 200 innings just twice and is very homer prone. Over the last couple seasons he's had good control and kept runs off the board but he's a huge risk. Keep him away.

i think byrd's a lot better than some people think. he is 32 but moyer is 40. people fail to realize that he was injured in '00 which explains his poor performance that season. other than that, he was excellent last year, had a 4.05 era for kc in 15 starts in '01, and he won 16 games in '99. he'd been a reliever up until that point but he'd had success in that role. he doesn't have the most proven track record but the reality is that he's started for 2 and a half years when he was healthy and he was pretty successful thoughout that time. he's not outstanding but he's good. a 3.8 to 4.0 era in the two spot with 15 wins or so is pretty solid as long as we don't overpay.

Iwritecode
11-25-2002, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i think byrd's a lot better than some people think. he is 32 but moyer is 40. people fail to realize that he was injured in '00 which explains his poor performance that season. other than that, he was excellent last year, had a 4.05 era for kc in 15 starts in '01, and he won 16 games in '99. he'd been a reliever up until that point but he'd had success in that role. he doesn't have the most proven track record but the reality is that he's started for 2 and a half years when he was healthy and he was pretty successful thoughout that time. he's not outstanding but he's good. a 3.8 to 4.0 era in the two spot with 15 wins or so is pretty solid as long as we don't overpay.

I have to agree with Kermit. Byrd and Ritchie are almost the same pitcher. I think their records were quite similiar in 99 and 2000. The 2 biggest reasons Ritchie struggled last year were:

1) Lack of run support (everyone remember how the offense would blow their load during Burly's starts and then have nothing left for Ritchie the next day?)

2) Bad mechanics that caused the shoulder injury later in the season. IIRC Farmer and Rooney mentioned it early in the season but Nardi never noticed it. It took Cooper to finally come in and correct it.

So in other words, we might as well keep Ritchie rather than sign Byrd. Both of them have as good a chance as the other to be descent this year.

BTW, about the last 6 lines of your post... Did you forget who orchestrates the trades around here?

:KW

Burly, Maggs and Konerko for Byrd? Where do I sign?

jeremyb1
11-25-2002, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Iwritecode
I have to agree with Kermit. Byrd and Ritchie are almost the same pitcher. I think their records were quite similiar in 99 and 2000. The 2 biggest reasons Ritchie struggled last year were:

1) Lack of run support (everyone remember how the offense would blow their load during Burly's starts and then have nothing left for Ritchie the next day?)

2) Bad mechanics that caused the shoulder injury later in the season. IIRC Farmer and Rooney mentioned it early in the season but Nardi never noticed it. It took Cooper to finally come in and correct it.

So in other words, we might as well keep Ritchie rather than sign Byrd. Both of them have as good a chance as the other to be descent this year.

BTW, about the last 6 lines of your post... Did you forget who orchestrates the trades around here?

first of all, any pitcher whose career numbers remotely resemble todd ritchie isn't destined to flirt with 20 losses next season. i think the ritchie deal is poor and thought so from the outset because of what we got up more than what we received. there is no way anyone would've ever predicted ritchie would struggle to the extent he did. an era of 6 is not in line with his career numbers and was largely the result of injury.

that said, i don't think ritchie is the same as byrd. ritchie was coming off of two seasons where his era was near 4.5 while byrd's era was under 4 for almost the entire season last year. also, ritchie did not become a viable pitcher in the big leagues until he was about 27 while byrd was making effective contributions in the pen by age 25.

regardless, i'd take byrd over no one. he may not be great but i still think he'd be reliable and he doesn't cost much.

kermittheefrog
11-25-2002, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by oldcomiskey
One could say the same thing about Greg Maddux too

Worst comparison ever.

Soxboyrob
11-25-2002, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I really really hope we stay away from Byrd. He is another Todd Ritchie waiting to happen. He's 32, he doesn't throw hard or get a lot of strike outs. He's thrown 200 innings just twice and is very homer prone. Over the last couple seasons he's had good control and kept runs off the board but he's a huge risk. Keep him away.

I don't think it's all that fair to compare the two. Ritchie was signed w/ the hope that he'd improve once on the Sox. His ERA over the two year span before coming to the Sox was 4.63.

Byrd's ERA over the last couple of seasons is 4.07. A reasonable argument can be made that Byrd had a better 2002 than Buehrle. As for his low number of K's, the same applies to Buehrle. Byrd's 2002 K/BB ratio was 3.4, compared to our very own Mark Buehrle's not overly stellar 2.2. Byrd seems to be getting better, instead of worse, like Ritchie was when acquired by the Sox. Byrd's exceptional control ought to lend itself well to his being able to continue to pitch 200+ innings per year. His age certainly ought to be brought into the fold, but lots of pitchers have peaked in their mid to late 30's. It seems sort of arbitrary to hold his age against him at this point, unless we're considering a term of more than 4 years on a contract offer (let's hope not).


There are certainly better options that Paul Byrd, but he'd hardly be the risk that Ritchie was, especially since we wouldn't have to give up any actual players to acquire him. I like the idea of getting a Moyer or a Byrd more than giving up a couple of guys for Colon.

kermittheefrog
11-25-2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
I don't think it's all that fair to compare the two. Ritchie was signed w/ the hope that he'd improve once on the Sox. His ERA over the two year span before coming to the Sox was 4.63.

Byrd's ERA over the last couple of seasons is 4.07. A reasonable argument can be made that Byrd had a better 2002 than Buehrle. Not only that but Byrd seems to be getting better, instead of worse, like Ritchie was when acquired by the Sox. Byrd's exceptional control ought to lend itself well to his being able to continue to pitch 200+ innings per year. His age certainly ought to be brought into the fold, but lots of pitchers have peaked in their mid to late 30's. It seems sort of arbitrary to hold his age against him at this point, unless we're considering a term of more than 4 years on a contract offer (let's hope not).

There are certainly better options that Paul Byrd, but he'd hardly be the risk that Ritchie was, especially since we wouldn't have to give up any actual players to acquire him. I like the idea of getting a Moyer or a Byrd more than giving up a couple of guys for Colon.

The point is he's getting to the point in his career when most guys begin to lose effectiveness and he's only spent two full seasons as a starter. One in 2002, one in 1999. When you get a 32 year old don't you expect more than 2 full seasons in the league. Beyond that, he was only good one of those two seasons.

We're talking a guy coming off his best season at age 32 and he hasn't had a season like that before. That's not a good guy to risk giving a multi-year contract. Expecting a guy to keep up a career year is setting yourself up for dissapointment. That's what you're doing with Byrd.

Soxboyrob
11-25-2002, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog

We're talking a guy coming off his best season at age 32 and he hasn't had a season like that before. That's not a good guy to risk giving a multi-year contract. Expecting a guy to keep up a career year is setting yourself up for dissapointment. That's what you're doing with Byrd.

I suppose it depends on how "multi-year" the contract is. I can't help but like the fact that the guy's shown improvement over the past few seasons and appears to be a very solid, low ERA, high-innings, great control kind of pitcher. I don't like the fact that he's older and generally unproven, but what else is out there? You're not going to be able to sign a Maddux for less than 4 years and I don't like the risks involved there either. The idea of Kenny trading for rent-a-Colon scares the bejeezus out of me. Where does that leave us? Truly, a pitcher in his early 30's ought to be considered to be in his prime, unless he's showing signs of age and loss of ability. Heck, Moyer's won well over 100 games since turning 32, and hasn't had a sub-.500 season since then....and all this while possessing an 83 mph fastball.

hold2dibber
11-25-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
I suppose it depends on how "multi-year" the contract is. I can't help but like the fact that the guy's shown improvement over the past few seasons and appears to be a very solid, low ERA, high-innings, great control kind of pitcher. I don't like the fact that he's older and generally unproven, but what else is out there? You're not going to be able to sign a Maddux for less than 4 years and I don't like the risks involved there either. The idea of Kenny trading for rent-a-Colon scares the bejeezus out of me. Where does that leave us? Truly, a pitcher in his early 30's ought to be considered to be in his prime, unless he's showing signs of age and loss of ability. Heck, Moyer's won well over 100 games since turning 32, and hasn't had a sub-.500 season since then....and all this while possessing an 83 mph fastball.

I'd rather have Daal than Byrd. Their numbers last year weren't too dissimilar, although Byrd's were a tad more impressive. But Daal is a few years younger and has had more success and been a bit more consistent than Byrd. I think Daal would be less risky; as Kermit points out, Byrd is coming off a career year at age 32 - seems unlikely that he'll be able to repeat those numbers.

kermittheefrog
11-25-2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Soxboyrob
I suppose it depends on how "multi-year" the contract is. I can't help but like the fact that the guy's shown improvement over the past few seasons and appears to be a very solid, low ERA, high-innings, great control kind of pitcher. I don't like the fact that he's older and generally unproven, but what else is out there? You're not going to be able to sign a Maddux for less than 4 years and I don't like the risks involved there either. The idea of Kenny trading for rent-a-Colon scares the bejeezus out of me. Where does that leave us? Truly, a pitcher in his early 30's ought to be considered to be in his prime, unless he's showing signs of age and loss of ability. Heck, Moyer's won well over 100 games since turning 32, and hasn't had a sub-.500 season since then....and all this while possessing an 83 mph fastball.

Moyer is the exception to the rule, we all know that. If it was relatively common for guys to pitch that well, that long with that kind of stuff there would be a lot of successful guys in their 40s throwing in the low 80s, but there's not. There's one guy. I think this is a season in which the Sox need to just pass up the free agent market, it's a weak crop.

I do think Maddux or Clemens would be a good signing despite their age because they are both so good. Either of them would have to fall far to lose effectiveness, the same can't be said of Byrd. And where in the world do you get the idea you can argue Byrd's season was better than Buehrle's?

Chisoxfn
11-25-2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Worst comparison ever.

Not really. I hear people talk all the time, scouts and announcers and they are always comparing Byrd to Maddux. Both have great movement on their pitches and mix things around very well with great control.

Does Maddux have great velocity or great strikeout numbers, not really. Did Lieber? Nope.

You don't need strikeouts to be a great pitcher. It is that kind of thought as well as the radar gun that keeps some teams from picking up great pitchers. Heck if the Sox bought that Mark Buerhle wouldn't be a starter right now and could just be relinquishing as a lefty reliever or even worse sitting in the minors.

Soxboyrob
11-25-2002, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
And where in the world do you get the idea you can argue Byrd's season was better than Buehrle's?

Not saying I'd necessarily argue it, but they were very much on the same page on many levels. Buehrle had the better ERA and more victories. Byrd had the better WHIP and K/BB ratio. Buehrle gives up fewer HRs. Byrd gives up fewer walks. I'd definitely choose Buehrle over Byrd, but they had very similar seasons in my opinion.

The only reason I even dare to compare a Paul Byrd to a Moyer (who is very much in a class by himself) is because they have similar pitching styles....finesse and control being their strongpoints. I just have this inkling that Byrd might turn into Moyer II. It's not the kind of inkling that would inspire me to offer the guy 4 years at $8-10M per....more like the kind of inkling that if the Sox somehow landed him for 3 years at about $5M a year, I'd be pretty excited. Won't happen though.