PDA

View Full Version : Take Pity On Us Montreal


34 Inch Stick
01-10-2003, 09:05 AM
At least give us Tony Armas, Jr. I thought Miaya was a good friend of KW's.

michigan84
01-10-2003, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
At least give us Tony Armas, Jr. I thought Miaya was a good friend of KW's.

Minaya may be a good friend of KW's but that does not mean that he owes him anything or will trade with him for the fact that they are firends. Minaya, like KW, has a job to do and that is to improve his club. He would not deal Aramas, Jr. to the ChiSox unless he got value back from the Sox. It is simply not his job to "take pity" on the Sox. He will not look at our weak pitching staff and trade Aramas, Jr. to the Sox if he is not getting a good deal. I don't even know that he is available. Isnt he pretty affordable? I have never heard any rumors of him being dealt. No, the Sox should try and develop their own homegrown pitching and not depend on other teams to do it for us.

NewyorkSoxFan
01-10-2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by michigan84
Minaya may be a good friend of KW's but that does not mean that he owes him anything or will trade with him for the fact that they are firends. Minaya, like KW, has a job to do and that is to improve his club. He would not deal Aramas, Jr. to the ChiSox unless he got value back from the Sox. It is simply not his job to "take pity" on the Sox. He will not look at our weak pitching staff and trade Aramas, Jr. to the Sox if he is not getting a good deal. I don't even know that he is available. Isnt he pretty affordable? I have never heard any rumors of him being dealt. No, the Sox should try and develop their own homegrown pitching and not depend on other teams to do it for us.

Michigan--- Relax I think our buddy was joking!

gosox41
01-10-2003, 01:11 PM
[. No, the Sox should try and develop their own homegrown pitching and not depend on other teams to do it for us. [/B]

The problem is they don't do it very effectively. Lip listed the prospects from 1997. How many are still in the game today, let alone considered good. The Sox have a history of overhyping their young talent only to disappoint. How many of these prized young arms never reached the potential the Sox thought they had?

The one guy the Sox 'developed' in the last 2 years (and I use that word loosely as I think it was outisde factors that contributed to his success) is Mark Buehle.

Sure, Jon Garland may be a future stud. But he is below average right now even if he is only 23. Assuming the Sox do succeed and Garland develops into a good pitcher, it'll probably be around his fifth or sixth year in the majors, or right around the time he's a free agent. How is that a good system for development? If he wasn't ready his first year or two in the majors then keep him in the minors and work on pitching strategy, changing speeds, etc. Instead, with the Sox "development process" they rushed him to the big leagues because they had failed to "develop" enough good pitching to begin with.

Bob

:KW
I have a bridge and a future Cy Young award winner available to any team who wants them. In return I want an over-the-hill veteran pitcher who was never much good to begin with.

hold2dibber
01-10-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by michigan84
Minaya may be a good friend of KW's but that does not mean that he owes him anything or will trade with him for the fact that they are firends. Minaya, like KW, has a job to do and that is to improve his club. He would not deal Aramas, Jr. to the ChiSox unless he got value back from the Sox. It is simply not his job to "take pity" on the Sox. He will not look at our weak pitching staff and trade Aramas, Jr. to the Sox if he is not getting a good deal. I don't even know that he is available. Isnt he pretty affordable? I have never heard any rumors of him being dealt. No, the Sox should try and develop their own homegrown pitching and not depend on other teams to do it for us.

I think it's safe to say 34" Stick was kidding; I don't think anyone actually expects Minaya to just hand over players.

But as to your point about homegrown pitching, the problem with that is, it doesn't work. The ONLY team in the majors that has developed its own pitching rotation is the A's, and they are an abberation. I mean, its possible that two of our guys (between Garland, Wright, Rauch and Biddle) will turn the corner this year and be above-average major league pitchers. But it is, quite frankly, extremely unlikely. Its easy to believe that these guys, all of whom have shown flashes of brilliance, all of whom are young, and all of whom ended '02 on a high note, are on the cusp of greatness. But it usually doesn't work out that way. Two examples: for the last two months of 2001, Brandon Duckworth looked extremely impressive for the Phillies, going 3-2 with a 3.52 ERA over 11 starts. Then last year, he sucked. Similarly, everyone will recall how awesome Kip Wells was at the end of '99 when he came up for a cup of coffee, yet in '00 he was a disaster. The point is, as hard as it is to give up promising young pitchers for fear of giving up a gem, the vast majority of promising young pitchers don't live up to their promise. So if you can trade them for proven top of the rotation guys, you do it (but you don't trade them for middle-of-the-rotation types, like Todd Ritchie).

jeremyb1
01-10-2003, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
The problem is they don't do it very effectively. Lip listed the prospects from 1997. How many are still in the game today, let alone considered good. The Sox have a history of overhyping their young talent only to disappoint. How many of these prized young arms never reached the potential the Sox thought they had?

The one guy the Sox 'developed' in the last 2 years (and I use that word loosely as I think it was outisde factors that contributed to his success) is Mark Buehle.

Sure, Jon Garland may be a future stud. But he is below average right now even if he is only 23. Assuming the Sox do succeed and Garland develops into a good pitcher, it'll probably be around his fifth or sixth year in the majors, or right around the time he's a free agent. How is that a good system for development? If he wasn't ready his first year or two in the majors then keep him in the minors and work on pitching strategy, changing speeds, etc. Instead, with the Sox "development process" they rushed him to the big leagues because they had failed to "develop" enough good pitching to begin with.

Bob

:KW
I have a bridge and a future Cy Young award winner available to any team who wants them. In return I want an over-the-hill veteran pitcher who was never much good to begin with.

i fail to see how a group of prospects from '97 has much of any bearing on the prospects we have now. clearly you have to the quality of the prospects from '97. they may have been decent but they weren't anywhere near as good as the select group of guys we're talking about now. none of them was minor league player of the year (or was 6'11 for that matter). none of them arrived in the majors when they were still 20. there were a few highly touted guys like ruffcorn but as a whole the sox were never given an minor leage system of the year or organization of the year awards.

you can't complain that we failed to develop some mediocre prospects in 1997 and therefore the organization can't develop prospects successfully. what prospects did the a's develop in '97? next to no good ones. it still didn't keep them from developing mulder, zito, and hudson, did it? we have an almost entirely different scouting and player developement team than we did when we drafted and developed the players that were prospects in '97. we're talking about a gap of at least about 4 years here. there's just no comparison.

as for garland, he was an average pitcher last season at the worst. he ranked 32nd in the al in era. his era was 4.58 to the league average 4.46, an average which is higher for starters. he won 12 games despite terrible run support at times. also, i see no reason why the fact that he was 22 doesn't make a difference. clearly there have been plenty of incredible starters that have been well below average at that age. that's the point. the fact that he's average at just 22 years old suggests good things to come. i don't know why that wouldn't be worth discussing.

Dadawg_77
01-10-2003, 04:24 PM
Look at best there is no such thing a sure fire Major league pitching prospect. A good system will help but there are so many variables that most of your young studs will fail. There are some guidelines such as don't draft high school pitchers.

jeremyb1
01-10-2003, 04:25 PM
i did some more research. want to guess how many pitching prospects the sox had on baseball americas top 100 prospect list in '97? zero. that could explain somethings. two pitchers (baldwin and ruffcorn) in '95 but zeron in '96 and '97. however, we had 3 in '00, and 3 in '01. rauch was the fourth best prospect in baseball in '01. garland would've been close to as high in '01 if he hadn't lost his rookie status.

hold2dibber
01-10-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i did some more research. want to guess how many pitching prospects the sox had on baseball americas top 100 prospect list in '97? zero. that could explain somethings. two pitchers (baldwin and ruffcorn) in '95 but zeron in '96 and '97. however, we had 3 in '00, and 3 in '01. rauch was the fourth best prospect in baseball in '01. garland would've been close to as high in '01 if he hadn't lost his rookie status.

Jeremy, since you apparently have access, how many of the pitchers in the top 100 prospect list from '97 have become better than average major league pitchers? Many people have stated (myself included) that even good minor league pitching prospects usually don't pan out. I'd be curious to see, just based on that one year, how things turned out for the top pitching prospects on that list.

Until someone can convince me otherwise, I think as a general rule, it is a good idea to trade top pitching prospects for proven top of the rotation major league pitchers. I mean, if Jon Rauch turns out to be as good as Bartolo Colon, I'll be quite happy. So, all other things equal, I would have no problem trading Rauch for Colon since the Sox have a chance to compete for the division title now and there is a decent chance that Rauch never will be as good as Colon (the caveat is that since Colon is only signed through '03, I wouldn't make that deal unless I was assured of being able to sign him to at least a 2 year extension). However, I think that as a general rule, you should not trade top pitching prospects (like Kip Wells) for mediocre major leaguers (like Todd Ritchie).

gosox41
01-10-2003, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i fail to see how a group of prospects from '97 has much of any bearing on the prospects we have now. clearly you have to the quality of the prospects from '97. they may have been decent but they weren't anywhere near as good as the select group of guys we're talking about now. none of them was minor league player of the year (or was 6'11 for that matter). none of them arrived in the majors when they were still 20. there were a few highly touted guys like ruffcorn but as a whole the sox were never given an minor leage system of the year or organization of the year awards. >>>>>>

I was using '97 as an example since it was recently talked about. Also, KW had a major role in the farm system then. I realize he didn't draft the guys, but that's only half the battle. For example, check out this years Twins. I think there was like one or two homegrown prospects that were first round picks. Of the 25 players on their roster, something like 20 came from the Twins system. Why have they had so much succeess turning later round picks in to successes. It's got something to do with the development. Obviously the Sox (and most other teams) didn't think that highly of certain player to make them 8th, or 10th round picks.

>>>>>you can't complain that we failed to develop some mediocre prospects in 1997 and therefore the organization can't develop prospects successfully. what prospects did the a's develop in '97? next to no good ones. it still didn't keep them from developing mulder, zito, and hudson, did it? we have an almost entirely different scouting and player developement team than we did when we drafted and developed the players that were prospects in '97. we're talking about a gap of at least about 4 years here. there's just no comparison.>>>>>

Again I was just looking at the Sox pitching prospects that year and wanted to see how htey were doing 5 years later. The thing is, I've heard this crap before from the Sox about all these promising great young arms. Outside of the early '90's it's been a bunch of crap. If these guys are so good we should see some results soon. I think a lot of these guys came in the late '90's (like Bob Fontaine JR). Sure the farm system was ranked #1...after the 2000 season. How has that paid off for the big club? The Sox are going into their third season living off that label even though they now have the 17th ranked system (according to one BA analysis) and in each of the two years after the Sox were ranked so high, they have less and less wins.

>>>>as for garland, he was an average pitcher last season at the worst. he ranked 32nd in the al in era. his era was 4.58 to the league average 4.46, an average which is higher for starters. he won 12 games despite terrible run support at times. also, i see no reason why the fact that he was 22 doesn't make a difference. clearly there have been plenty of incredible starters that have been well below average at that age. that's the point. the fact that he's average at just 22 years old suggests good things to come. i don't know why that wouldn't be worth discussing.

First, he was average at best and I think that's being generous. I look at WHIP and K/BB ratio more then I look at ERA. The reason it's not worth discussing Garland's so-called high ceiling is two fold: First, I've heard it all before. Second, if he does become that good it'll likely be when he is close to free agency as he is under the long term White Sox development program. At least the Sox may be able to say the developed a successful #1 pitcher....too bad he may be doing it for another team.

Bob

gosox41
01-10-2003, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Look at best there is no such thing a sure fire Major league pitching prospect. A good system will help but there are so many variables that most of your young studs will fail. There are some guidelines such as don't draft high school pitchers.

So that leaves the Sox in a pretty bad position. A high risk of failure among their overhyped prospects, their inability to keep good pitching around past free agenct, and their refusal to be players in the free agent markets.

These overhyped arms better start performing before their 4th or 5th year in the majors. I don't care how old they were when they came up. All that means is that they'll have that much longer of a career pitching (and possibly having success) elsewhere.

Bob

Lip Man 1
01-10-2003, 07:26 PM
Gosox41 hit the nail right on the head! What Jeremy and others fail to realize is that the odds of developing a stud PITCHING STAFF is astronomical!

You might, MIGHT, develop one or two (if you are Oakland three...) but that's all. Given the Sox track record PLUS the fact that they refuse to sign any quality free agent pitchers (based on the owners philosophy) they are totally screwed!

Does ANYBODY seriously expect that the Sox out of the blue are going to have four or five studs develop? and all at the same time???

Even Atlanta went out and got Maddux, Byrd, Ortiz, Hampton etc down through the years. As great a farm system as the Braves had, they STILL didn't feel they had enough pitching.

Please spare me the research and Baseball America's, Baseball Prospectus' etc. numbers. The only number that matters is wins and losses in the major leagues.

Assuming some kid from Podunk, Arkansas is going to be the next "Roger Clemens" is worthless. That's why you have to aggressively persue the most important factor in baseball....pitching, pitching and MORE pitching. Guys that have established themselves and PROVEN they can do the job are worth (in my opinion) ten times what some kid "might" do.

One other point that people forget and this is a clear reflection on the Sox organization. MARK BUEHRLE WAS AN ACCIDENT!

He was NOT considered a top Sox prospect, he was not even considered a starter...go back and read the papers from 00 / 01. The Sox made him a middle relief guy in 00, then didn't even consider Buehrle a bona fide starting prospect in the Spring of 01. He came North as the #5 starter because of a brilliant Spring.

What does that say for out "scouts" and Manager Gandhi's ability to judge talent? and what does that say about the "science" of judging minor leagues pitching in general?

ALSO A QUESTION FOR JEREMY

I am requesting that you SPECIFICALLY state your "parameters" as far as when a "young pitcher" has been given a chance and has failed.

I'd like to see it "on the record". I don't want to read your comments in a year or two saying "oh Garland, Wright, Malone etc haven't had a chance."

OK...then what is the criteria? Two years? Three years? 50 starts? 250 innings? what...

Please list them. Basically I'd like to know at what point in time does being "young" STOP being an excuse.

Thanks!

Lip

Paulwny
01-10-2003, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Please spare me the research and Baseball America's, Baseball Prospectus' etc. numbers. The only number that matters is wins and losses in the major leagues.
Lip

Yep, Scott Ruffcorn got eveyone out in the minors and couldn't get anyone out in the majors.

34 Inch Stick
01-11-2003, 10:28 AM
Isn't 400 innings generally used as the time in which to judge a pitcher?

Is Podunk in Arkansas?

Where do you think the people of Podunk use as a reference when they speak of small, insignificant places in the middle of nowhere?

Just some questions to ponder and extend this thread.

gosox41
01-11-2003, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Gosox41 hit the nail right on the head! What Jeremy and others fail to realize is that the odds of developing a stud PITCHING STAFF is astronomical!

You might, MIGHT, develop one or two (if you are Oakland three...) but that's all. Given the Sox track record PLUS the fact that they refuse to sign any quality free agent pitchers (based on the owners philosophy) they are totally screwed!

Does ANYBODY seriously expect that the Sox out of the blue are going to have four or five studs develop? and all at the same time???

Even Atlanta went out and got Maddux, Byrd, Ortiz, Hampton etc down through the years. As great a farm system as the Braves had, they STILL didn't feel they had enough pitching.

Please spare me the research and Baseball America's, Baseball Prospectus' etc. numbers. The only number that matters is wins and losses in the major leagues.

Assuming some kid from Podunk, Arkansas is going to be the next "Roger Clemens" is worthless. That's why you have to aggressively persue the most important factor in baseball....pitching, pitching and MORE pitching. Guys that have established themselves and PROVEN they can do the job are worth (in my opinion) ten times what some kid "might" do.

One other point that people forget and this is a clear reflection on the Sox organization. MARK BUEHRLE WAS AN ACCIDENT!

He was NOT considered a top Sox prospect, he was not even considered a starter...go back and read the papers from 00 / 01. The Sox made him a middle relief guy in 00, then didn't even consider Buehrle a bona fide starting prospect in the Spring of 01. He came North as the #5 starter because of a brilliant Spring.

What does that say for out "scouts" and Manager Gandhi's ability to judge talent? and what does that say about the "science" of judging minor leagues pitching in general?

ALSO A QUESTION FOR JEREMY

I am requesting that you SPECIFICALLY state your "parameters" as far as when a "young pitcher" has been given a chance and has failed.

I'd like to see it "on the record". I don't want to read your comments in a year or two saying "oh Garland, Wright, Malone etc haven't had a chance."

OK...then what is the criteria? Two years? Three years? 50 starts? 250 innings? what...

Please list them. Basically I'd like to know at what point in time does being "young" STOP being an excuse.

Thanks!

Lip


Lip mad an excellent point about Atlanta. Maddux was a free agent sign. They got Smoltz in a trade and developed Glavine. The point is they used all options to get their 3 studs. In the mid 90's Millwood came up. He's obviously a solid pitcher but the Braves certainly didn't rush him. And it also helps that the Braves have a great pitching coach and a genius like Greg Maddux to learn from.

Look at the Yankees. Everyone gives them credit for developing talent and they've done a good job with position players. They have one homegrouwn starter (Pettite). The rest of their 7 starters were gotten through trades or free agent signings. AS far as I'm concerned, Contreras was a free agent signing who went to the highest bidder. I don't see him as a player the Yankees drafted and developed in their minor league system. He was a proven talent (at a lower level of play then MLB but higher then college ball) who is older. Same thing with El Duque.



Hopefully Cooper will prove to be as good as the Leo. He's better then Nardi.

Bob