PDA

View Full Version : Mendoza Signs With Red Sox


Lip Man 1
12-29-2002, 11:57 PM
ESPN is reporting that another pitcher who could have really helped, Ramiro Mendoza signed a two year deal with the Red Sox.

It's going to be funny if for the third straight year, Sox management gets burned because they placed too much faith in the "can't miss kid" pitchers.

Lip

kermittheefrog
12-30-2002, 12:10 AM
Too bad we couldn't land him. I liked him. And of a bunch of folks who know more than I do also like him. I'd bet he'll be a good pickup and wouldn't be surprised if he gets an opportunity in the Red Sox rotation.

WhiteSoxWinner
12-30-2002, 12:10 AM
Yup, let's give more time to this year's version of Scott Ruffcorn and Scott Eyre. Yippee!!!

OK, maybe Rauch, Wright, or Garland will finally become the Clemens clone we have all been promised and expect, but there is nothing wrong with getting some insurance and signing a good starter. This team NEEDS starting pitching, and we haven't done jack about it. Kenny, WAKE UP!!!!

jeremyb1
12-30-2002, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
ESPN is reporting that another pitcher who could have really helped, Ramiro Mendoza signed a two year deal with the Red Sox.

It's going to be funny if for the third straight year, Sox management gets burned because they placed too much faith in the "can't miss kid" pitchers.


which "can't miss kid" are you talking about? david wells or todd ritchie? we've added veterans each of the past two years and that's what's burned us, at least last year. if we'd stayed with "can't miss kid" kip wells we would have the number two starter everyone covets right now.

phil rogers said mendoza is injured and the ap reported the yankees didn't resign him because of health concerns. his career numbers as a starter are not all that impressive. certainly if we can add two or three above average pitchers we should go for it but is a mendoza or a suppan, a below average or average at best starter, really going to make the difference? neither of those pitchers have the ceiling or importance that rauch does and its possible that we could sign one of those players and they could produce the similarly or worse than biddle for more money. its one thing if you're talking about not trading for millwood and the like but when you're saying we're killing ourselves by not trdaing for these thoroughly mediocre pitchers, that doesn't make any sense to me.

the way i see it at the point that we missed out on maddux, clemens, ortiz, byrd, millwood, et al we need one or more of the kids to come through. an innings eater with an era in the upper 4s or so isn't going to save the rotation and our chances of making the playoffs. the only possible "difference maker" as kw likes to say that is still out there is valdes and that may even be a stretch although i don't think so. anyone else you're asking for a lot of luck like we had with eldred in '00. its possible just not at all likely.

kermittheefrog
12-30-2002, 02:56 AM
I think Suppan or Valdes would both make a big difference on this staff. I don't think we should take opportunity away from Rauch, Garland or Wright but I don't have faith in Biddle to be good and healthy at the same time. Either Suppan or Valdes could provide 200 innings at slightly better than league average quality. That's at least 100 more innings than I'd expect from Rocky Biddle, and most likely at a better quality.

Lip Man 1
12-30-2002, 12:24 PM
Jeremy:

Wells was in his mid 30's, had a bad back and a bad attitude. Ritchie had an ERA of over four in a league where the pitcher bats.

I'm talking about going out and signing pitchers who DON'T HAVE ANY BAGGAGE.

Other teams can do it (How about the Cubs getting Clement for garbage?)

Kip Wells is another .500 pitcher period. He's NOT the second coming, never was...never will be. He'll never win 18 games let alone 20. I'm amazed at your faith in this guy who did nothing for three years with the Sox. He had plenty of chances.

Neither is Garland or Wright... both lost in double figures as well as won in double figures, how does that help?

Rauch may become the "big eunuch," but he'll never be the second coming of the "big unit."

and Biddle has been hurt more then healthy. Rocky hasn't set the world on fire (maybe it's time to give Bullwinkle a chance?)

Since 1995 Sox fans had been led down the merry avenue of promises that the "next wave" of young guys is going to get the job done. They NEVER have.

Phil Rogers also had a column where he revealed that the Sox SPEND LESS MONEY on what many people think is the most important part of baseball... starting pitching, then any other team in the division and they are among the lowest spenders on pitching in baseball.

Sure... ignore what's 90 per cent of the game. Remember Ken Williams famous comment, "unless you're willing to spend 40 million on a starting staff you BETTER have your kids come through."

Hasn't happened has it?

Of course you think these guys are a better alternative, why wouldn't you? You've also stated that you think the Sox have done very well averaging 83 lousy wins a season since the White Flag disaster and you've already gone on record as saying the Sox are going to win 90+ games this season.

Fine...please respond to my offer and contact me for a friendly wager.

Lip

jeremyb1
12-30-2002, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

Wells was in his mid 30's, had a bad back and a bad attitude. Ritchie had an ERA of over four in a league where the pitcher bats.

I'm talking about going out and signing pitchers who DON'T HAVE ANY BAGGAGE.

Other teams can do it (How about the Cubs getting Clement for garbage?)

Kip Wells is another .500 pitcher period. He's NOT the second coming, never was...never will be. He'll never win 18 games let alone 20. I'm amazed at your faith in this guy who did nothing for three years with the Sox. He had plenty of chances.

Neither is Garland or Wright... both lost in double figures as well as won in double figures, how does that help?

Rauch may become the "big eunuch," but he'll never be the second coming of the "big unit."

and Biddle has been hurt more then healthy. Rocky hasn't set the world on fire (maybe it's time to give Bullwinkle a chance?)

Since 1995 Sox fans had been led down the merry avenue of promises that the "next wave" of young guys is going to get the job done. They NEVER have.

Phil Rogers also had a column where he revealed that the Sox SPEND LESS MONEY on what many people think is the most important part of baseball... starting pitching, then any other team in the division and they are among the lowest spenders on pitching in baseball.

Sure... ignore what's 90 per cent of the game. Remember Ken Williams famous comment, "unless you're willing to spend 40 million on a starting staff you BETTER have your kids come through."

Hasn't happened has it?

Of course you think these guys are a better alternative, why wouldn't you? You've also stated that you think the Sox have done very well averaging 83 lousy wins a season since the White Flag disaster and you've already gone on record as saying the Sox are going to win 90+ games this season.

Fine...please respond to my offer and contact me for a friendly wager.


your suggestion that clement appeared to be a better acquisition than wells and ritchie at the time really cuts away at your credibility. clement had had eras of 4.61, 4.48, 5.14, and 5.05 before signing with the cubs. ritchie had eras of 4.47, 4.81, and 3.49. they were about the same age but clement was making more money. the cubs got him only as a salary dump.

the problem is stud starting pitchers don't just fall out of the sky. reinsdorf won't spend the money for a free agent and the price on someone like colon is incredibly expensive. you're view is so skewed i'm sure you'd deal garland, rauch, and honel for colon but that would not be a good deal.

in general your views of all our young pitchers are completely unsupported. that's fine that you don't think they're any good but without any reason to back that up i'm not inclined to give your claims a whole lot of thought. kip wells had one of the best era's in the nl last year. simply stating that he wasn't good for us and since he was on the pirates his won loss record wasn't good doesn't convince me that he's worthless.

you again hurt your credibility by stating the pitchers are worthless because they didn't acheive anything in their first season. that's not the way it works. young pitchers take time to develop. especially pitchers like garland who reach the majors at 20. pitchers then improve and become good. 9 out of 10 of stud pitchers are not superstars in their first season or before they turn 24. its not that hard to research. look up the career numbers for randy johnson, schilling, kevin brown, tom glavine, smoltz, or even colon who had an era of 5 in his first season. stating that a 23 year old pitcher like garland is worthless because he's only been about average so far is ridiculous.

ken williams statement is exactly right. exlain to me how we win a world series with omar daal, suppan, paul wilson, and dustin hermanson. this is your master plan? i'd love to see how we win more than 83 games with this lineup. your reference to my 83 games comment is just pointless. its something i've explain about a dozen times because you think its fun to keep bringing it up so i'm going to stop. we all know that every other team in baseball wins 90 games per season and that we would too if you were the gm.

i don't know which pitching prospects we were touting in '95 but there no longer in the system. guys like sirotka and baldwin got us 95 wins in '00. maybe that's nothing to you but it means something to me. i also would stop short of calling mark buehrle's contribution to this team the last two years worthless. do you wish we'd traded him for someone like mendoza in a trade three years ago because he probably wouldn't have even brought that much. however, since its never appropriate to wait for young pitchers and since we're better off with veterans that would've been the best move right? same for oakland when zito had an era near five in the first half of '01 or when mulder had an era of 6 for 8 starts in '00, right?

i'm not sure i said we'll win 90 games this season although i don't think its impossible. i believe i said that we would win 95 if we had a number two starter or something to that effect. i didn't pick up on your offer so repeat it and maybe we can make a wager. i'd be willing to take garland's era over that of any free agent of your choosing who starts 25 or more games next year as long as its not valdes, who i think we should sign or kenny rogers who is asking for too much money.

jeremyb1
12-30-2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I think Suppan or Valdes would both make a big difference on this staff. I don't think we should take opportunity away from Rauch, Garland or Wright but I don't have faith in Biddle to be good and healthy at the same time. Either Suppan or Valdes could provide 200 innings at slightly better than league average quality. That's at least 100 more innings than I'd expect from Rocky Biddle, and most likely at a better quality.

i agree there are some injury concerns with biddle. i'd like paul wilson or valdes much more than suppan. like i said somewhere else ideally we'd get someone who could be a swingman like daal or mendoza so that we could give biddle a chance yet still have a backup. i don't know how kindly suppan would take to not being guaranteed a starting job going into spring training and possibly ending up in the pen at least for a while if he's beat out for the job. i think he'll come cheap and i'd definately like to have him around for insurance but i don't know how he'd feel about that. someone like the orioles who doesn't have much young pitcher could probably guarantee him a starting spot.

gosox41
12-30-2002, 03:54 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lip Man 1
[B]Jeremy:



>>>Neither is Garland or Wright... both lost in double figures as well as won in double figures, how does that help?

First let me say that I have been greatly disappointed with the slow development of Garland and Wright. While I don't expect instant greatness, they need to develop consistency sooner. However, wins and losses aren't necessarily the most accurate way to measure success in pitching.

Didn't Garland, Wright, and Buehrle have very similar numbers to the Twins top 3 starters? I belioeve Phil Rogers pointed this out.



>>>Since 1995 Sox fans had been led down the merry avenue of promises that the "next wave" of young guys is going to get the job done. They NEVER have.

Development of young players has been a major problem for the Sox. Hopefully Cooper will change that. I did see more consistency out of Wright after Cooper became pitching coach. Cooper also changed Biddle's wind up and he looked OK in his last couple of outings.


>>>Sure... ignore what's 90 per cent of the game. Remember Ken Williams famous comment, "unless you're willing to spend 40 million on a starting staff you BETTER have your kids come through."

Hasn't happened has it?>>>>


Pitching is only half the game and should be allocated as such when it comes to payroll. Where the Sox got it wrong is they'll pay more money for a reliever who pitches less innings then they will a starter.

Bob

gosox41
12-30-2002, 03:58 PM
>>>the problem is stud starting pitchers don't just fall out of the sky. reinsdorf won't spend the money for a free agent and the price on someone like colon is incredibly expensive. you're view is so skewed i'm sure you'd deal garland, rauch, and honel for colon but that would not be a good deal.>>>

Then the Sox need to look at free agents. Of course not trading for Millwood still pisses me off to no end. They could have had a 28 year old #2 starter for nothing but didn't go for it. That's the pitcher that falls out of the sky that the Sox blew. They probably didn't trade for him because of his agent and Reinsdorf's bullheadedness.


Bob

jeremyb1
12-30-2002, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
>>>the problem is stud starting pitchers don't just fall out of the sky. reinsdorf won't spend the money for a free agent and the price on someone like colon is incredibly expensive. you're view is so skewed i'm sure you'd deal garland, rauch, and honel for colon but that would not be a good deal.>>>

Then the Sox need to look at free agents. Of course not trading for Millwood still pisses me off to no end. They could have had a 28 year old #2 starter for nothing but didn't go for it. That's the pitcher that falls out of the sky that the Sox blew. They probably didn't trade for him because of his agent and Reinsdorf's bullheadedness.


yeah. trading for millwood would've been huge. words can't explain how much that would've helped our chances next season. one season, ten million for us to take on and a decent prospect such as malone or even a lesser prospect would've gotten it done. you'd think shuelerholz was trying to trade millwood outside of the division. i don't see what our excuse is there. we cut more than ten million from last season's payroll and we wouldn't have had to resign him. makes no sense.

obviously i think a free agent would be a good idea but at a certain point if we're not going to have a strong rotation thanks to a signing of maddux, moyer, etc. i agree with ken williams that we might as well go for broke with the young kids. we know what someone like suppan will give us. 200 inning and an era near five. we know that's not going to be enough to get us to the promise land. on the other hand we don't know what someone like rauch or biddle will give us. could be better than suppan it could be worse. if its worse it probably doesn't matter becaues we're not going to get really far anways and we'd give the young pitchers experience so that maybe that can get us somewhere next season. if the production is better than suppan not only have we improved our chances for the future by giving our young guys experience, we've also improved our team this season. i feel like we have nothing to lose at this point.

Lip Man 1
12-30-2002, 08:14 PM
Jeremy:

Once again your credibility is damaged when you say that you think winning 83 games a season is good especially compared to other teams.

I don't give a damn about other teams. All I care about is the White Sox...the CHICAGO White Sox (you know the 3rd largest market in the country?)

Compare what the Sox have produced with the A's or the Astros shall we? Funny kids like Zito, Oswalt, Mulder etc didn't have to wait three or four years to start winning and winning big did they?

Please stop throwing "numbers" at me showing without a doubt how great Kip Wells is. He had three years to show something with the Sox and didn't, he had a miserable second half with the Pirates and was no better then Garland or Wright. He won in double figures and lost in double figures. (In fact that's an indictment of both Garland and Wright because Wells won about the same number of games with a far worse team)

Mark Buehrle is an EXCELLENT pitcher (and how is Sox management treating him?) but Buehrle doesn't make up for this does he. This is a partial list of "can't miss kids" who were supposed to lead the Sox out of the wilderness according to Uncle Jerry and his scouts since 1995:

Mike Bertotti, Rod Bolton, Robert Ellis, Scott Ruffcorn, Steve Schrenk, Luis Andujar, Brian Keyser, Carlos Castillo, Chris Clemons, Nelson Cruz, Scott Eyre, Tom Fordham, Lorenzo Barcelo (the "key" to the White Flag Trade LOL), Todd Rizzo, Bryan Ward, Kevin Beirne, John Snyder, Aaron Myette,Tanyon Sturtze, ken Vining.

Not very encouraging is it? And most of these stiffs didn't do squat in any other organization either so obviously they weren't any good to start with.

My point is if the Sox won't sign high quality free agent pitchers, or trade for them (funny the D'backs never seem to have problems getting good pitchers?) and can't seem to develop them, how in the hell are they supposed to win?

You want us Sox fans to sit back, cross our fingers and HOPE that out of the blue, four studs are going to appear at once? Hell the Sox were fortunate to have Buehrle drop in their laps (and to show you what the organization thought of him, they considered him a middle relief guy in 2000!)

So I ask you again, how are the Sox supposed to "consistently win" (in the words of the GM) without pitching?

By the way the Sox beat writers have also written that it would be a tremendous risk to enter this season with the rotation unchanged.

You mention that I'd trade away everybody to get Colon. As I've stated in the past, I'm trying to win NOW, not three years from now. So yes I'd trade them in a heartbeat. And then when it came time to replace the guys I'd acquired, I'd trade the "next wave" for proven MLB pitchers. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.


Or as Torn Labrum stated on another thread after listing the franchises shortcomings over the past twenty years, give us"pessimists" reasons to BE optimistic. (besides your youth and blind loyalty)

Lip

Daver
12-30-2002, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

Lorenzo Barcelo (the "key" to the White Flag Trade LOL)

Barcelo was not the key to to the white flag trade,Mike Caruso was,he was supposed to be the franchise replacement for Ozzie Guillen,until Schu,in his infinite wisdom,decided to put him on a big league roster two years before he was ready for it.Lorenzo was the highest profile pitching prospect in the deal,but not the key.

Lip Man 1
12-30-2002, 08:26 PM
Daver:

Go back and read my long historical look back on the White Flag Deal in the archives.

I quoted Schueler DIRECTLY from the story in the Chicago Tribune from that day. He said the Caruso AND Barcelo were the "keys" to the deal.

Some "keys" eh?

Lip

lowesox
12-30-2002, 08:32 PM
Why can't there be an in between? It's easy: you find good talent at a low price. Personally, I disagree with both of you. I think standing pat is stupid. The key to developing young pitchers is to have veterans they can learn from, and who take away the pressure. Having "star pitchers" is no good if you have to gamble the future to get them. Not to mention, it's nice when you have a number veteran number two guy winning 15 games, and young 4 and 5 guys contributing while they develop.

I think having an idiotic GM is causing us all to think it all has to be white or black. Smart GMs aim to make their teams a little bit better one move at a time.

Lip Man 1
12-30-2002, 10:30 PM
Lowe:

I've got to tell you that you make a lot of sense (and you use capital letters and good spacing so that it's actually easy to read your stuff!)

No question having a top GM makes things a lot easier. Of course the Sox will never have one as long as Uncle Jerry owns the club (can't have someone who may actually tell the owner he needs to stay in Arizona, shut up, and just sign the checks)

Given the two choices however and most importantly, given the Sox "track record" of success in developing young arms , I'd easily take my chances in trading away a possible future "Cy Young winner," for a pitcher (or two) who is healthy and has shown himself capable of winning in the big leagues right now.

Because remember when it comes to the Sox, "tomorrow never comes..."

Lip

jeremyb1
12-30-2002, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

Once again your credibility is damaged when you say that you think winning 83 games a season is good especially compared to other teams.

I don't give a damn about other teams. All I care about is the White Sox...the CHICAGO White Sox (you know the 3rd largest market in the country?)

Compare what the Sox have produced with the A's or the Astros shall we? Funny kids like Zito, Oswalt, Mulder etc didn't have to wait three or four years to start winning and winning big did they?

Please stop throwing "numbers" at me showing without a doubt how great Kip Wells is. He had three years to show something with the Sox and didn't, he had a miserable second half with the Pirates and was no better then Garland or Wright. He won in double figures and lost in double figures. (In fact that's an indictment of both Garland and Wright because Wells won about the same number of games with a far worse team)

Mark Buehrle is an EXCELLENT pitcher (and how is Sox management treating him?) but Buehrle doesn't make up for this does he. This is a partial list of "can't miss kids" who were supposed to lead the Sox out of the wilderness according to Uncle Jerry and his scouts since 1995:

Mike Bertotti, Rod Bolton, Robert Ellis, Scott Ruffcorn, Steve Schrenk, Luis Andujar, Brian Keyser, Carlos Castillo, Chris Clemons, Nelson Cruz, Scott Eyre, Tom Fordham, Lorenzo Barcelo (the "key" to the White Flag Trade LOL), Todd Rizzo, Bryan Ward, Kevin Beirne, John Snyder, Aaron Myette,Tanyon Sturtze, ken Vining.

Not very encouraging is it? And most of these stiffs didn't do squat in any other organization either so obviously they weren't any good to start with.

My point is if the Sox won't sign high quality free agent pitchers, or trade for them (funny the D'backs never seem to have problems getting good pitchers?) and can't seem to develop them, how in the hell are they supposed to win?

You want us Sox fans to sit back, cross our fingers and HOPE that out of the blue, four studs are going to appear at once? Hell the Sox were fortunate to have Buehrle drop in their laps (and to show you what the organization thought of him, they considered him a middle relief guy in 2000!)

So I ask you again, how are the Sox supposed to "consistently win" (in the words of the GM) without pitching?

By the way the Sox beat writers have also written that it would be a tremendous risk to enter this season with the rotation unchanged.

You mention that I'd trade away everybody to get Colon. As I've stated in the past, I'm trying to win NOW, not three years from now. So yes I'd trade them in a heartbeat. And then when it came time to replace the guys I'd acquired, I'd trade the "next wave" for proven MLB pitchers. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.


Or as Torn Labrum stated on another thread after listing the franchises shortcomings over the past twenty years, give us"pessimists" reasons to BE optimistic. (besides your youth and blind loyalty)


i'm not sure why i continue to explain myself when you're just going to distort my words but i'm going to do it one last time on this issue and that is it.

if you go back to my original post on the issue, my point was that playing over .500 ball for a sustained period of time is better than what the majority of teams in baseball do and that i was pleased that we were not in the situation that the royals or tigers who are going on about a decade without a .500 record. what is the correct answer there? should i not be pleased that we're not that bad? or should i demand 90 wins per season? you know who gets 90 wins per season? the braves and the yankees. that's about it. oakland's done it for three years which is impressive. that is less than a 6th of the teams in baseball.

certainly i would love to always perform at that level but as i stated at the time i'm pleased we're not worse. we've been in the upper half of teams the last three or four years and taking our payroll into account i think that's impressive. am i happy jr spends as little as he does? no. does that change our budget? not by a long shot. does this mean i can't want and hope for more? no, it means i'm not losing sight of what we have accomplished while still hoping to accomplish more.

all i ever said - and you can go back and check out that thread - is that it could be worse and i'm glad its not. i think that refusing to acknowledge that is insulting to what the orioles', d-rays', expos', royals', and tigers' fans have to deal with on a regular basis as well as to anyone who has been a fan of this team when it has been really bad.

show me where i said "i'll be happy if we win 83 games next season" or "if we can win 83 games every season i'll be happy" or "i don't care if the white sox make the playoffs" or anything along those lines. why would i spend time on this board and money on the team if i didn't want them to do well?!?!?!

if you're going to selectively bring up examples of pitchers i'm going to have to bring up more examples. first of all you can't judge young pitchers entirely on experience, you must do so based on age. yes you're right that some pitchers don't need a lot of time to succed at the major league level but at no point do i suggest there aren't exceptions, we have one on our team. your ability to bring up a few pitchers who succeed quickly in no way disproves my point. however, not all your examples are as clear cut as you'd suggest.

zito had 14 great starts in '00, kind of like how kip wells had 8 strong starts in '99. zito then followed that up with inconsistency. in the first half of '01 his era was 4.58. not poor numbers but not the excellent numbers you seem to demand. again he was inconsistent and young pitchers tend to be.

mark mulder started 27 games in '00. his era? 5.44. that's worse than the marks wright and garland posted last season by a long shot. good thing the a's didn't trade him, right?

oswalt like buehrle was an exception. he's been lights out almost ever since he reached the majors.

lets look at some other players who followed the more traditional route. randy wolf has been excellent the past two years with era's of 3.20 last year and 3.70 in '01. however, he started out slow. in '99 his era was 5.55 in 21 starts. he improved to 4.36 in 32 starts in '00 before becoming a top of the rotation starter.

roy halladay was great in his rookie season in '99 but struggled in '00 posting an era over 10 and getting demoted before posting era's of 3.16 and 2.93 the last two seasons.

jeff weaver had an era of 5.55 in 29 starts in his '99 debut before improving to 4.32 in '00, 4.08 in '01, and 3.52 last season.

jarrod washburn had an era of 4.62 in 11 starts in '98 and an era of 5.25 in 10 starts in '99 before turning the corner in '00 and becoming one of the top pitchers in the game last season.

joel pineiro had an era of 5.59 in 8 games in '00 before dominating in a relief role in '01 and moving to the rotation last season.

ramon ortiz posted a 6.52 era in '99 and a 5.09 era in '00, and a 4.36 era in '01 before helping the angels win the world series last season.

i could keep going but i'll stop. those are only pitchers under 30 in the top 15 in era in the al.

as for kip wells his "miserable" second half with the pirates equates to a 3.60 era. you'll have to explain that one to me. if struggling early in your career makes a pitcher worthless, all the pitchers listed above are also worthless and we can add your prized aquisition bartolo colon to that list.

you seem to be arguing to me that we should sign free agent top of the rotation pitchers. obviously there's no argument there. we should've signed maddux, glavine, moyer, clemens, byrd, trachsel, and probably a few other guys too. however, the reality is that jr wouldn't pay for them and we didn't sign them so we're no longer left with that option. i don't think we should trade the rest of our rotation for colon because a good one two punch means nothing if you lose the other 3/5ths of your games. it also means nothing if you fail to win the world series this year and then lose half of your one two punch to free agency.

the important thing to understand is there are no "can't miss" pitchers. however, garland and wright are already to a stage where they haven't missed. barring an improbable step backwards or serious injury (knock on wood) , they have already rreached a stage where they are going to spend a good number of years in the majors even if wright eventually ends up in the bull pen. rauch isn't quite there yet but he's better than nearly every player you listed and none of them ever won the minor league player of the year award. you make it sound like i'm saying "no, don't sign greg maddux, we have josh stewart waiting in the wings" when in reality all i'm saying is "don't sign jeff suppan because we have a top prospect ready to contribute".

if we can't develop young pitchers we will NOT win until the labor situation in baseball is fixed and/or we get a new owner. there is absolutely no way around that. excellent starting pitchers simply cost too much money for us to acquire five proven veterans at between 5 and 10 million a piece with the budget imposed by jr. like it or not there is no way to change that. maybe we can acquire a few pitchers that are still young and not making enough money but not an entire rotation full of pitchers.

jeremyb1
12-30-2002, 10:54 PM
...lets be realistic. if we wouldn't trade next to nothing for millwood because we wouldn't take on the 10 million he'll probably get in arbitation, how do we trade a ton of good young players to pay colon 9 million? if finances are the reason we didn't acquire millwood (and i don't see what else it could be), how can we afford colon? the way i see it there is no reason for us to even have this most of this conversation because at this point we've failed to sign the top free agents and we don't seem to want to pay for the one or two top of the rotation starters that are available so it doesn't even matter whether or not we should trade for them.

all that's left is whether or not to block the progress of someone like rauch, wright, or garland by signing someone like suppan or steve sparks. personally i fail to see what the point would be. if we want to sign valdes that'd be great or even wilson, person, or daal would be fine so long as we allow the best five pitchers to make the staff and see what happens. i fail to see the logic however in trading away half our team for a player that'll be here for one season or knocking a player like rauch out of the rotation.

jeremyb1
12-30-2002, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
Why can't there be an in between? It's easy: you find good talent at a low price. Personally, I disagree with both of you. I think standing pat is stupid. The key to developing young pitchers is to have veterans they can learn from, and who take away the pressure. Having "star pitchers" is no good if you have to gamble the future to get them. Not to mention, it's nice when you have a number veteran number two guy winning 15 games, and young 4 and 5 guys contributing while they develop.


i think veteran leadership is helpful providing it doesn't downgrade the talent in the rotation. i think it would've been nice if we couldn've kept david wells past last season. the problem is we need a veteran who can actually contribute at the same time. a lot of the guys available out there right now can't do that.

i do think you can get good talent at a young price but that's ussually young talent like the kind we have right now. steve trachsel had an era of 3.15 the last year and a half and signed for less than 5 mil per year i believe. that's good talent relatively cheap but we missed the boat. valdes is very solid talent and what will probably be a very good price but we look like we very well may miss the boat there too.

my argument has never been to stand pat. i've said all along we should add a free agent starter as our number two. the problem is that most of the best pitchers are gone now. i only think we should add a starter if he can actually make a difference and there are a lot of mediocre pitchers out there right now that are most liklely not going to be better than rauch or biddle next season. providing each of those two pitchers is healthy they should be able to have an era no higher than 5 and throw nearly 200 innings. that's about all a player like suppan is going to do.

lowesox
12-30-2002, 11:39 PM
Given the second half of last year the Sox should be asking themselves what do we need to not only make the playoffs, but to win in the playoffs. Right now their rotation isn't good enough to beat most of the playoff level teams. But I think Sox fans are hard on Wright and Garland. We have a rotation with three 10 game winners. That's pretty good. If we can add one more that's pretty solid. Especially if Garland and Wright continue to progress. I wouldn't trade either of those guys for most players (especially Colon) because I think they are valuable contributors who stand to way better AND they're cheap.

BUT as a Sox fan I'm asking myself what about the other two spots. I think its only one spot really that we're talking about here because I think it's always a good idea to have a slot in your rotation open for rookies especially when you're in a position like the sox are where you have about 4 good options (one of them is going to have to come through). Two slots is too much though. And I don't buy the "blocking a roster spot" argument because playoff level teams are supposed to have extra. Right now we have not enough.

I like the idea of signing two guys. 1) Lieber so we have someone REALLY solid to look forward to, and 2) Suppan, or Halama or whoever. There are a lot of the guys out there now who will win 8-10 games, eat up a bunch of innings, and teach the younger guys a thing or two.

Thanks to Schueler Williams is in pretty good shape right now. He is however destroying everything that was built for him. It's a shame. He's not wise enough to know that he's only one or two small signings - role players - away from having a truly good team. But he'll find a way to ruin that too.

Sox fans shouldn't be looking for us to pickup a number 2 pitcher. We should be looking for a new GM.

MarkEdward
12-31-2002, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Other teams can do it (How about the Cubs getting Clement for garbage?)


The Cubs gave up the best minor league pitcher in baseball for Clement (Willis). That's not exactly giving up "garbage."

jeremyb1
12-31-2002, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by lowesox

BUT as a Sox fan I'm asking myself what about the other two spots. I think its only one spot really that we're talking about here because I think it's always a good idea to have a slot in your rotation open for rookies especially when you're in a position like the sox are where you have about 4 good options (one of them is going to have to come through). Two slots is too much though. And I don't buy the "blocking a roster spot" argument because playoff level teams are supposed to have extra. Right now we have not enough.

I like the idea of signing two guys. 1) Lieber so we have someone REALLY solid to look forward to, and 2) Suppan, or Halama or whoever. There are a lot of the guys out there now who will win 8-10 games, eat up a bunch of innings, and teach the younger guys a thing or two.

i definately agree with you. the only issue i have is that i feel like rauch and biddle should both be given a careful look in spring training considering how well they pitched down the stretch. i think it would be better to have a pitcher like halama or suppan as insurance IF they're not guaranteed a spot in the rotation. those pitchers are thoroughly mediocre and while they'd be valuable if biddle or rauch doesn't look good in the spring or isn't entirely healthy i'd had to see us in the situation - however unlikely it may be - where both biddle and rauch have great springs coming off of their finishes and we feel like we don't have a spot for them.

as for veteran's helping, i question how much a pitcher like halama or suppan would help out the younger pitchers. halama hasn't spent a ton of time in the majors and suppan is a guy who's never really put it together so i question how much he knows about pitching. i think buehrle is probably a better pitcher to guide the young pitchers despite his age. if we want someone to help the young guys we need someone who's been around for a while like eldred had in '00. kenny rogers is asking for a lot and i don't think he'll do much next year but he strikes me as the type who might rub off positively on our young pitchers. valdes, daal, and person might also help the young pitchers by being a veteran influence.

Lip Man 1
12-31-2002, 01:42 PM
Jeremy says:

if we can't develop young pitchers we will NOT win until the labor situation in baseball is fixed and/or we get a new owner.

For ONCE Jeremy and I agree on something...the Sox "can't" develop young pitchers, and the Sox won't win until they get a new owner. (Which will also solve the "labor situation" because hopefully the Sox will get someone who won't be afraid to take on the Steinbrenners of the world.)

Mark Edward says "the Cubs traded their top prospect for him, that's not exactly "garbage"

Sorry Mark in my book all the "potential" in the world is garbage. What have you done in the bigs? I told you I'm from the Casey Stengel school of managing "the only thing rookies will do is get you fired.." How many of the Sox kids had potential and never even MADE the bigs, let alone became impact players? Let's see if the Cubs top prospect that they traded ever does something with Florida. As of right now, the Cubs deal is so one sided it's not even funny. (and if the Cubs can do it and supposedly they're so stupid, what does that make the Sox who can't seem to do the same thing?)

Lip

kermittheefrog
12-31-2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
The Cubs gave up the best minor league pitcher in baseball for Clement (Willis). That's not exactly giving up "garbage."

Mark, at the time it looked like they got Clement for garbage. And they still might have, we know what pitching prospects are like. What if Willis follows up his breakthrough Corwin Malone style?

MarkEdward
12-31-2002, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Mark, at the time it looked like they got Clement for garbage. And they still might have, we know what pitching prospects are like. What if Willis follows up his breakthrough Corwin Malone style?

And what if he ends up becoming Greg Maddux? I understand Willis is a long shot, but he's hardly "garbage."

If the Cubs got Clement for garbage, they would have traded Mike Mahoney and Augie Ojeda to the Marlins.

kermittheefrog
12-31-2002, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
And what if he ends up becoming Greg Maddux?


Sounds like some tricky science fiction stuff to me!

Okay but seriously, giving up a C+ a-ball pitching prospect is nothing to get a legit pitcher like Clement. It'd be the equivalent of us giving up Wyatt Allen and then Allen becoming one of the top pitching prospects in baseball. Sure the guy throws 97 but he hasn't been all that good yet and he's not even in a-ball. The bottom line is they didn't risk much in making a move to get Clement. Unlike the ****headed move Kenny made to get Ritchie.