PDA

View Full Version : Sox sign Rick White


MaggPipes
01-22-2003, 03:53 PM
I can't believe i beat everyone to this...i know i am going to post it and then look again and someone will have beat me to it...

I guess he is taking Ginter's role...................that would be my assumption.......



White Signed........ (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20030122&content_id=193049&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp)

FanOf14
01-22-2003, 04:01 PM
Pardon my lack of a brain today (too much stress makes brain mush), but, who is Rick White? Where did he come from (and don't tell me his mom neither!!! :D: )

MaggPipes
01-22-2003, 04:02 PM
i posted a link........started last year with the Rockies and ended it with the Cards...........

FanOf14
01-22-2003, 04:04 PM
Thanks!! :)

That guy looks really familiar and since his name means nothing to me, I have no idea why he looks familiar to me...

A.T. Money
01-22-2003, 04:05 PM
I hope his numbers are deceiving. He doesn't look like he's very good.

pudge
01-22-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
I hope his numbers are deceiving. He doesn't look like he's very good.

He got bombed in Colorado, but was stellar for St. Louis at the end of the year. I think that bodes well.

MaggPipes
01-22-2003, 04:08 PM
:KW

"Hey i have to make a deal of some sort every Wednesday....besides i like to get guys who had under 1 ERA's in their short stays with their second team last year"

Pete_SSAC
01-22-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
I hope his numbers are deceiving. He doesn't look like he's very good.

Agreed. I was reading that and basicly,the only word that came to mind is..

"Why?"

- Pete

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 04:09 PM
Boo. Bad move KW.

MarkEdward
01-22-2003, 04:14 PM
Hmm, I really don't see a point to this. He's a ROOGY (.653 OPS vs. Right, .860 OPS vs. Left) who can't pitch more than one inning. He's a cheaper version of Tom Gordon. I'm perplexed.

MaggPipes
01-22-2003, 04:14 PM
I am looking at my scouting notebook from last year and here is what it has to say about him:

"White showed he could handle the set-up role and bounce back quickly when pitching only 2 innings....has a four seam fastball in the 92 MPH range...sharp slider....decent chane-up, curveball and splitter.......loves to challange hitters and is not afraid to go inside.....former bar bouncer(NICKNAME????)............decent fielder....holds runners well for a righty....

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 04:17 PM
I really don't like this. Whoever said he would be our long reliever is wrong. He's going to suck next year... mark my words. He's going to eat up roster space in the bullpen we could be giving to someone more valuable. This move sucks.

hold2dibber
01-22-2003, 04:19 PM
I don't know enough about the guy yet to judge this acquisition. His career stats (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=5186) are pretty good, but certainly not great (3.97 career ERA, under 4.00 almost every year, and a great finish last year). Particularly impressive are his numbers against right handed hitters. Seems to me that as of right now, the bullplen looks like this:

For sure:

Koch (closer)
Marte (left handed set up man)
Gordon (right handed set up man)
White (middle relief)
Glover (middle and long relief)

Probably:

Wunsch

Maybe (possibly depending on whether they carry a 6 or 7 man bullpen):

Munoz
Ginter

I agree that this signing, to me, suggests that the Sox don't have much faith in Ginter. I think its a pretty strong bullpen. I think Ginter has potential, but the Sox know what they can expect out of White, whereas Ginter is still something of a question mark.

MaggPipes
01-22-2003, 04:20 PM
It probably just means that we don't want to rush Munoz our any of our other pitching prospets....
I would hope that we do send him back down to start.....get him conditioned to do that and watch out in 2004.....

hold2dibber
01-22-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I really don't like this. Whoever said he would be our long reliever is wrong. He's going to suck next year... mark my words. He's going to eat up roster space in the bullpen we could be giving to someone more valuable. This move sucks.

Why do you think this? The only time in his career when he has "sucked" was when he was pitching for the Rockies at Coors. Other than that, it looks like he's been a solid, dependable middle reliever. So what makes you think he'll suck next year? And whose roster space do you think he'll take that would be better?

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 04:23 PM
Anyone know financial terms of this deal?

pudge
01-22-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Why do you think this? The only time in his career when he has "sucked" was when he was pitching for the Rockies at Coors. Other than that, it looks like he's been a solid, dependable middle reliever. So what makes you think he'll suck next year? And whose roster space do you think he'll take that would be better?

Agreed, there's nothing wrong with this move, what if Gordon gets injured? You can never have too many arms. It's not like this guy has totally sucked in his career, he's been pretty steady. Plus, the way Manual likes to work, he has one crew for one night, and a new crew for the next night. Gordon and White will probably swap nights. (Not that I totally agree with that managerial tactic.)

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Why do you think this? The only time in his career when he has "sucked" was when he was pitching for the Rockies at Coors. Other than that, it looks like he's been a solid, dependable middle reliever. So what makes you think he'll suck next year? And whose roster space do you think he'll take that would be better?

ERA's close to 4 in the NL in a setup role with less than stellar strikeouts does not impress me. And don't give me any of that **** about Coors field with his ERA nearing 7. Yes, Coors increases your ERA, but not up to 6.2! There's just not a whole lot that impresses me about him. I'm not too sure about who's roster spot he'll be taking up, but I'm betting it'll be one of the following; Ginter, Munoz, Almonte, Stewart - All of whom I'd rather have.

delben91
01-22-2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I really don't like this. Whoever said he would be our long reliever is wrong. He's going to suck next year... mark my words. He's going to eat up roster space in the bullpen we could be giving to someone more valuable. This move sucks.

Assuming we aren't going to be paying him some huge figure this season, I don't see the problem with the move. We give up nothing. It's not as if this was some horrible trade by KW. As pudge said, not like you can ever have too many arms. I'm not saying he'll set the league afire, but I'll give him a chance to prove his worth.

OfficerKarkovice
01-22-2003, 04:37 PM
I've seen Rick White pitch in the past and I watched him quite a bit last year when he was with St. Louis. He's a good pitcher...very hard nosed and goes right at guys. Another very good move by KW in my opinion. Look at teams like Seattle and NY in the past few years, good veteran relief pitchers are a huge asset. I feel much better with White in there than Matt Ginter. Good move Kenny.

hold2dibber
01-22-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Agreed, there's nothing wrong with this move, what if Gordon gets injured? You can never have too many arms. It's not like this guy has totally sucked in his career, he's been pretty steady.

That's a great point; as much as I like Gordon when he's healthy, this move gives the Sox a little insurance and more depth in the bullpen. I think it's a positive move. I just don't see any downside here.

HawkDJ
01-22-2003, 04:38 PM
He was 3-1 with a 0.82 ERA with the Cardinals last year. I don't have a problem with the move. I'd rather itbe him then the (supposedly) 20 year old Munoz. I still like Ginter though, it doesn't seem like the Sox do. Some more veteran leadership can't hurt though. We have a nice mix of young guys and veterans.

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
He was 3-1 with a 0.82 ERA with the Cardinals last year. I don't have a problem with the move. I'd rather itbe him then the (supposedly) 20 year old Munoz. I still like Ginter though, it doesn't seem like the Sox do. Some more veteran leadership can't hurt though. We have a nice mix of young guys and veterans.

No, he was 3-1 with a 0.82 ERA for the last month and a half of the season. Before that, his ERA skyrocketed to over 6. I'd rather go with Ginter, this guy just looks like a fluke to me in that last month.

I admit I overreacted at first to this reaction, but I'm still not too fond of it. I would have rather gone in house to complete our bullpen.

hold2dibber
01-22-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
ERA's close to 4 in the NL in a setup role with less than stellar strikeouts does not impress me. And don't give me any of that **** about Coors field with his ERA nearing 7. Yes, Coors increases your ERA, but not up to 6.2! There's just not a whole lot that impresses me about him. I'm not too sure about who's roster spot he'll be taking up, but I'm betting it'll be one of the following; Ginter, Munoz, Almonte, Stewart - All of whom I'd rather have.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. As others have noted, we didn't have to give away anyone in trade. He has a track record as a dependable, solid reliever. Sounds like he's a gamer, which I always like. And, by the way, his home ERA was through the roof last year (over 6.00) whereas his road ERA was under 3.00 - certainly suggests that Coors DID have a big effect on his performance. It's a positive move.

RedPinStripes
01-22-2003, 04:49 PM
I smell a trade coming. Ginter wont be in AAA all year and we do need a legit cf\leadoff man unless they dream that harris , valentine, Jiminez or rowand can do it. No thanks!

Can KW pull of 2 good trades in a row? :?:

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I guess we'll just agree to disagree. As others have noted, we didn't have to give away anyone in trade. He has a track record as a dependable, solid reliever. Sounds like he's a gamer, which I always like. And, by the way, his home ERA was through the roof last year (over 6.00) whereas his road ERA was under 3.00 - certainly suggests that Coors DID have a big effect on his performance. It's a positive move.

Your right about not giving anyone up, that's definately a huge plus. Depending upon how much we're giving him, I guess I could live with this. It just seems to me like we had better talent in house. Like I said, I admit to over-reacting at first to this trade. I looked at his numbers a while ago in the past and I guess the Coors numbers were the ones that stuck in my mind. After looking now, he's not too bad, but I'd still rather go in house. I hope Ginter remains in the majors, because I don't want Glover to be forced into our long relief role, he's so much more effective in a setup role.

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
I smell a trade coming. Ginter wont be in AAA all year and we do need a legit cf\leadoff man unless they dream that harris , valentine, Jiminez or rowand can do it. No thanks!

Can KW pull of 2 good trades in a row? :?:

If this did happen, it wouldn't be for a legit leadoff man. I don't see a trade to be honest.

HawkDJ
01-22-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
No, he was 3-1 with a 0.82 ERA for the last month and a half of the season. Before that, his ERA skyrocketed to over 6. I'd rather go with Ginter, this guy just looks like a fluke to me in that last month.

I admit I overreacted at first to this reaction, but I'm still not too fond of it. I would have rather gone in house to complete our bullpen.

Right I was saying that is with the Cardinals. His ERA before that was in Colorado, not the friendliest place to pitch.

CHISOXFAN13
01-22-2003, 04:54 PM
The reason GOGOSOXGOGO doesn't like this move is because we passed on Lieber.

This guy has been a solid reliever his entire career. This is a great acquisition. I just talked to a friend who is a Cards fan, and he is very disappointed.

hold2dibber
01-22-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Your right about not giving anyone up, that's definately a huge plus. Depending upon how much we're giving him, I guess I could live with this. It just seems to me like we had better talent in house. Like I said, I admit to over-reacting at first to this trade. I looked at his numbers a while ago in the past and I guess the Coors numbers were the ones that stuck in my mind. After looking now, he's not too bad, but I'd still rather go in house. I hope Ginter remains in the majors, because I don't want Glover to be forced into our long relief role, he's so much more effective in a setup role.

I don't feel like the Sox needed to make this move, because I was relatively comfortable with the guys you mentioned previously at the bottom of the bullpen. But the more pitching depth, the better. Pitchers get hurt, young pitchers flame out once they hit the majors, etc., etc. All in all, I just don't think it can hurt. Now, what I don't know is what other FA relievers are out there - the question I still have is, if KW saw the need to add bullpen depth, was White the best guy available?

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
The reason GOGOSOXGOGO doesn't like this move is because we passed on Lieber.

This guy has been a solid reliever his entire career. This is a great acquisition. I just talked to a friend who is a Cards fan, and he is very disappointed.

That's not true. These are two completely different acquisitions and I can differentiate between the two.

I'm going to talk to one of my friends who is a huge Cards fan tommorrow and maybe he'll change my mind. I report back here as to what he tells me.

CHISOXFAN13
01-22-2003, 04:57 PM
It's funny because a week ago everyone was panicking about the lack of moves. Now KW is signing and trading for guys left and right and people are complaining.

HawkDJ
01-22-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
It's funny because a week ago everyone was panicking about the lack of moves. Now KW is signing and trading for guys left and right and people are complaining.

If by "people" you mean gogosoxgogo, then yes people are complaining.

SoxxoS
01-22-2003, 05:04 PM
First off, one team can never have enough depth. Knowing Flash Gordon's injury history, he could very well be on the DL the first week of the season.

Second, if this move was made for depth, that's great. However, I second what Red Pin Stripes said earlier...I smell a trade...

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
It's funny because a week ago everyone was panicking about the lack of moves. Now KW is signing and trading for guys left and right and people are complaining.

The only thing I personally complained about was starting pitching. I felt our bullpen was one of the stronger ones. I was extremely happy with the trade for Colon and the pickup of Rios to replace Leifer. Gordon was ok with me because we needed someone to replace to Osuna. I never paniced over our bullpen and said KW had to do something.

CHISOXFAN13
01-22-2003, 05:07 PM
Hey GOGO, I appreciate your idea and opinion. That's what's great about this board and being a Sox fan. Obviously everyone os uf is passionate about this team, unlike a majority of the fans on the other side of town.

I just like the fact that we are adding veteran players that have experience in the playoffs. I don't think KW is done. I wouldn't be surprised if me makes another trade/free agent signing. I'm hoping for another SoxFest surprise.

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
If by "people" you mean gogosoxgogo, then yes people are complaining.

I'm not complaining that KW is doing things. I'm happy he's actually trying to improve our team instead of sitting on his ass. My only complaint about this acquisition is simply that I don't believe it had to be made.

MarkEdward
01-22-2003, 05:16 PM
For what it's worth, White's ERA+ in Coors was 79.

Of course, that's based on 40 innings, a small sample size. I don't like this trade because his ERA+ has been falling, and he doesn't strike anyone out. Not a good combination.

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
For what it's worth, White's ERA+ in Coors was 79.

Of course, that's based on 40 innings, a small sample size. I don't like this trade because his ERA+ has been falling, and he doesn't strike anyone out. Not a good combination.

Yes! Someone else on my side! Thanks Mark! BTW, this wasn't a trade.

delben91
01-22-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
For what it's worth, White's ERA+ in Coors was 79.



Perhaps this is a stupid question, but that would be nothing new for me. What's factored into an ERA+ number? And in turn, what would good and excellent ERA+ values be?

RedPinStripes
01-22-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
If this did happen, it wouldn't be for a legit leadoff man. I don't see a trade to be honest.

Ginter wouldnt be the only one involved. You couldnt get an upper deck seat for him in a trade. Miles, Hummel, Ginter, Porzio or one of the minor league pitchers could be dealt since KW didnt with Colon. Just a guess. I dont see the Sox keeping Ginter. There's a reason he picked white up instead of using "the great" ginter or porzio. Then again, i could be paronoid.

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Ginter wouldnt be the only one involved. You couldnt get an upper deck seat for him in a trade. Miles, Hummel, Ginter, Porzio or one of the minor league pitchers could be dealt since KW didnt with Colon. Just a guess. I dont see the Sox keeping Ginter. There's a reason he picked white up instead of using "the great" ginter or porzio. Then again, i could be paronoid.

Just out of curiosity, who do you think the Sox could get for those players?

I wouldn't like giving up Ginter to be honest. Who would fill long relief? I don't want Glover in that role.

maurice
01-22-2003, 05:35 PM
Not a bad pick up. He definitely adds some proven depth to the pen. White's career ERA is a respectable 3.97, a bit worse than Osuna's but better than Gordon's.

hold2dibber
01-22-2003, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Ginter wouldnt be the only one involved. You couldnt get an upper deck seat for him in a trade. Miles, Hummel, Ginter, Porzio or one of the minor league pitchers could be dealt since KW didnt with Colon. Just a guess. I dont see the Sox keeping Ginter. There's a reason he picked white up instead of using "the great" ginter or porzio. Then again, i could be paronoid.

I am convinced that the Sox are committed to giving Rowand a shot at the CF job. I would be shocked if they brought someone in to take, or compete for, the job. They figure if he flames out, they'll bring Borchard up at mid-year. He's the future in CF anyway.

Dadawg_77
01-22-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by delben91
Perhaps this is a stupid question, but that would be nothing new for me. What's factored into an ERA+ number? And in turn, what would good and excellent ERA+ values be?

ERA+ - the ratio of the league's ERA to that of the pitcher (adjusted for ballparks). > 100 is above average and < 100 is below average. lgERA / ERA


This is from http://www.baseball-reference.com

Jjav829
01-22-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by delben91
Perhaps this is a stupid question, but that would be nothing new for me. What's factored into an ERA+ number? And in turn, what would good and excellent ERA+ values be?

It's not a stupid question. It is adjusted ERA which compares how a pitcher performs when compared to the rest of the league. It is the league ERA divided by the pitchers ERA. In this situation the league had a 5.73 ERA in Coors and White had a 7.23 giving him a 79. Anything over 100 and the pitcher is doing better than the rest. The higher over 100, the better. Conversely anything under 100 indicates your doing worse than the rest of the league.

joecrede
01-22-2003, 05:41 PM
If White's signing is a signal a deal is in the works - and it could be - I think Glover would be the guy. White is not a long reliever and Glover would bring more value back than Ginter would.

Dadawg_77
01-22-2003, 05:47 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/whiteri01.shtml


That is White page at Baseball Reference. I would have to disagree with Mark on his assement of White. His ERA + in Coors was 79, but with the Card was 480 so he end up at 106 for the year. Which is exactly what is was in 2001. It is down from 2000, but not enough to establish a trend other then he can't pitch at Coors.

One problem is his WHIP is high at 1.36 (Guys allowed on base per inning)

He made a million dollars last year so he probally be making a little less or about the same with this contract.

Jjav829
01-22-2003, 05:52 PM
I kind of like the signing. It's a low risk signing, with a potential high reward (If White's time with the Cards is an indication of how he will perform this year). I say it's a good move by KW. He is really overhauling our pen. I guess this is the move that KW was talking about in that quote yesterday about him having a move that he didn't want to discuss. :?:

Ventura23Fan
01-22-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Not a bad pick up. He definitely adds some proven depth to the pen. White's career ERA is a respectable 3.97, a bit worse than Osuna's but better than Gordon's.

That is not a fair comparison since Gordon spent a good part of his career as a starter. Since '98, Gordon has been used exclusively as a reliever and his ERA has been 3.31 since then. Likewise, since White has been used only in relief ('00), his ERA has been 3.84.

rmusacch
01-22-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
Thanks!! :)

That guy looks really familiar and since his name means nothing to me, I have no idea why he looks familiar to me...

Maybe because he looks a little like David Wells?

rmusacch
01-22-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
I hope his numbers are deceiving. He doesn't look like he's very good.

Since he has been used exclusively in relief, his ERA has been pretty respectable except for this stint with the Rockies.

Huisj
01-22-2003, 06:22 PM
was this the guy who was one of tampa bay's decent relievers a few years back that all got traded around the trading deadline?

rmusacch
01-22-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
was this the guy who was one of tampa bay's decent relievers a few years back that all got traded around the trading deadline?

Yes I think you are right on that.

RedPinStripes
01-22-2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Just out of curiosity, who do you think the Sox could get for those players?

I wouldn't like giving up Ginter to be honest. Who would fill long relief? I don't want Glover in that role.

It depends who else is involved in the trade. I never said Ginter alone was going to get us a CF or leadoff guy.

Long relief could be glover, Porzio, or they could bring someone up.

I just dont see the Sox hanging on to Ginter. There doesnt seems much room for him and he cant go alone unless they get some low level prospect. That's another possibility.

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
It depends who else is involved in the trade. I never said Ginter alone was going to get us a CF or leadoff guy.

Long relief could be glover, Porzio, or they could bring someone up.

I just dont see the Sox hanging on to Ginter. There doesnt seems much room for him and he cant go alone unless they get some low level prospect. That's another possibility.

I don't like Glover in long relief. He's so much more effective in a setup role. Porzio I don't like at all.

MarkEdward
01-22-2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/whiteri01.shtml
That is White page at Baseball Reference. I would have to disagree with Mark on his assement of White. His ERA + in Coors was 79, but with the Card was 480 so he end up at 106 for the year. Which is exactly what is was in 2001. It is down from 2000, but not enough to establish a trend other then he can't pitch at Coors.

Well, he only pitched 20 innings in St. Louis. Anything can happen in 20 innings.

One problem is his WHIP is high at 1.36 (Guys allowed on base per inning)

And his K/IP was .65.

He made a million dollars last year so he probally be making a little less or about the same with this contract.

Do we really need a second ROOGY?

Lip Man 1
01-22-2003, 07:07 PM
EXCELLENT move! Hell Hernandez is still out there and Suppan / Helling--- let's grab for the ring while the Sox have a shot for it!

The more experienced guys the better, especially guys who have pitched in the post season.

I feel a lot more confident with White, Gordon, Koch etc then I would be with Matt "Gopher Ball" Ginter, Mike Porzio and their ilk.

Those guys (especially the can't miss kids") can be sent back to the minors, where they belong, to develop their craft instead of being rushed to the majors simply to "prove" to the fans, that the Sox have been drafting great pitchers. Let them learn at a slower pace.

In a worst case scenario consider this---say the Sox fall flat on their asses this year, come the trading deadline teams will be salivating over some of the pitchers (including Colon). A good GM should be able to extort a king's ransom for them which might be beneficial in the next few seasons.

A very positive signing.

Lip

pudge
01-22-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/whiteri01.shtml


One problem is his WHIP is high at 1.36 (Guys allowed on base per inning)

He made a million dollars last year so he probally be making a little less or about the same with this contract.

This is not a bad WHIP for someone in his spot... for reference, Osuna's & Gordon's were also 1.36 last season. Wunch's was way higher, as was Porzio's, not to mention Ginter's.

WillieHarris12
01-22-2003, 07:36 PM
I'd take White over Glover or Ginter.

jeremyb1
01-22-2003, 07:38 PM
i don't have too much to say about this that hasn't already been said. i don't know how you could have much of a problem with this deal unless we only carry 11 pitchers.

as others have previously mentioned, we have 6 guys in the pen right now, none of which is well suited for long relief. addtionally, if we only take 11 pitchers (as kw has said we will do in order to keep three catchers) that would leave next to no possibility for anyone from the group of stewart, munoz, sanders, almonte et al to make the team which could be a mistake.

as for white, his numbers are nearly as good as osuna's. what more can you really ask for? i think the organization has been very smart in trying to build a strong pen with a lot of depth to it. that has been the key to success for teams like the twins and seattle in the recent past. gordon is a suitable replacement for osuna IF he can stay healthy. unfortunately that's a pretty big if. if gordon get's hurt glover could easily step into the setup role (where i think he should be regardless) but we then would've lost a good deal of depth in the pen. this move is very important assures that even if injuries take place we will still have good bull pen depth.

i don't agree with putting too much stock into numbers in coors. it does weird things to pitchers. look at how pitchers like kile, veres, gabe white, astacio in the first half of last season, and others have pitched after leaving. it seems wrong to try to narrow it down to one statistic such as how well you pitch at home compared to the rest of the league because coors often seems to affect pitchers more mentally than anything else.

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by WillieHarris12
I'd take White over Glover or Ginter.

Glover was extremely effective out of the bullpen last year. Ginter may be the only one suitable for long relief.

WillieHarris12
01-22-2003, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Glover was extremely effective out of the bullpen last year. Ginter may be the only one suitable for long relief.

Glover also gave up what, 3 HR in a row to the Twins to start off a game? I don't think he is anything special.

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by WillieHarris12
Glover also gave up what, 3 HR in a row to the Twins to start off a game? I don't think he is anything special.

He's not a starter! Look at his stats out of the bullpen. He was incredible. If he doesn't start, he can be a real threat.

duke of dorwood
01-22-2003, 07:53 PM
I dont get this one. Doesnt seem to be a long innings guy to be a middle relief guy.
We appear to be building a "Twins" bullpen of guys that they got lucky and just happened to have career years all at once.

MarkEdward
01-22-2003, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

The more experienced guys the better, especially guys who have pitched in the post season.

Lip

Jarrod Washburn
Ramon Ortiz
Kevin Appier
Aaron Sele
John Lackey
Troy Percival
Ben Weber
Al Levine
Brendan Donnelly
Scott Schoeneweis
Last, but not least, Francisco Rodriguez

What do these players have in common? Well, they were on the pitching staff of the 2002 Anaheim Angels. What else do they have in common? None of them pitched in a World Series game before 2002.

RedPinStripes
01-22-2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Jarrod Washburn
Ramon Ortiz
Kevin Appier
Aaron Sele
John Lackey
Troy Percival
Ben Weber
Al Levine
Brendan Donnelly
Scott Schoeneweis
Last, but not least, Francisco Rodriguez

What do these players have in common? Well, they were on the pitching staff of the 2002 Anaheim Angels. What else do they have in common? None of them pitched in a World Series game before 2002.

Great point. :gulp:

gogosoxgogo
01-22-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Jarrod Washburn
Ramon Ortiz
Kevin Appier
Aaron Sele
John Lackey
Troy Percival
Ben Weber
Al Levine
Brendan Donnelly
Scott Schoeneweis
Last, but not least, Francisco Rodriguez

What do these players have in common? Well, they were on the pitching staff of the 2002 Anaheim Angels. What else do they have in common? None of them pitched in a World Series game before 2002.

Couldn't agree more. Post season experience is important, but way too overrated. If we could chose between someone who had an ERA of 2.8 in the regular season and 8 in the post season, or 3.2 in the regular season and 1 in the post season, I'd take the former.

Huisj
01-22-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

The more experienced guys the better, especially guys who have pitched in the post season.




We're going to end up like the baltimore orioles of the late 90's. Go ask Rob Neyer about his thoughts on the "Proven Veteran."

Daver
01-22-2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
We're going to end up like the baltimore orioles of the late 90's. Go ask Rob Neyer about his thoughts on the "Proven Veteran."

But they do bring the fabled "veteran prescence pitch" to the bullpen,to coin one of Kermits terms.

:)

hold2dibber
01-22-2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Jarrod Washburn
Ramon Ortiz
Kevin Appier
Aaron Sele
John Lackey
Troy Percival
Ben Weber
Al Levine
Brendan Donnelly
Scott Schoeneweis
Last, but not least, Francisco Rodriguez

What do these players have in common? Well, they were on the pitching staff of the 2002 Anaheim Angels. What else do they have in common? None of them pitched in a World Series game before 2002.

It's funny - when you started listing Angels pitchers, I thought your point was going to be that the Angels won with a deep and versatile bullpen, like the one I think KW is building. I agree that post-season experience means almost nothing; the Yankees didn't have much the first WS they won in the '90s, the D-Backs didn't have it, the Angels didn't have it. I don't think the Marlins' players who won in '97 had much post season experience either, IIRC. But I do think that the Angels (and others) have shown the benefits of having a deep bullpen. I think the Sox are building a damn good, deep bullpen.

bc2k
01-22-2003, 11:32 PM
I only look at this White signing in a positive light. First off, this was a free agent signing, not a trade, so we didn't give up anyone for him. He has a good chance of helping the Sox this year and adds to our bullpen depth. Also, KW has had success in his smaller trades and I have no reason to doubt KW on this.

Ginter had that one great game last year vs. the Cubs when he came in for Wright and pitched a few innings of scoreless ball, giving the Sox a chance to win the game (which they did). From that game on, I thought Ginter was finally hitting his stride and he was on his way to becoming a good long-reliever. But he fizzled after that, he never really came close to that game the rest of 2002. I'm not quite ready to give up on the guy though.

I don't understand all the talk about the Sox aquiring a CF and a leadoff hitter. I think all of us here know that the Sox don't have the biggest payroll and aren't going to buy the best players for every position. Like Dibber said, with Rowand and Borchard in CF, why would the Sox want to upgrade that position.

And I don't see what is wrong with Jimenez as leadoff hitter. He was steady, if not impressive from that role. I saw no reason why he couldn't continue his success in 2003. Outside of lack of experience, and the fairly short time in that role, I bet no one else has a reason either.

IMO it is unnecessary for the the Sox to make trades to upgrade at these two positions.

Lip Man 1
01-23-2003, 12:39 AM
Mark says:

What do these players have in common? Well, they were on the pitching staff of the 2002 Anaheim Angels. What else do they have in common? None of them pitched in a World Series game before 2002.

Hey Mark can you spell F-L-U-K-E ? Just like the 2000 White Sox.

Like Jack McDowell said in his interview "very few teams get into the playoffs the first time and win it all..."

These are the WHITE SOX we are talking about. You know, the team that is simply a hangnail on the fickle finger of fate.

The only way Jon Rauch, Matt Ginter, Edwin Almonte and so forth get to the playoffs is if they buy a ticket. As for me I'll take whatever chances the Sox have on guys who don't take a wizz in their pants when they walk out to the mound, especially in an August pennant race or in October.

Lip

doctor30th
01-23-2003, 01:00 AM
I just wanted to add, that last year, even though his era might not be great in everyone eyes, he stranded over 80% of inherited runners.

On top of that he is most likely signed to replace ginter, who he is better than.

He also only cost $600,000 with 150,000 in performance bonuses.

jeremyb1
01-23-2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mark says:

What do these players have in common? Well, they were on the pitching staff of the 2002 Anaheim Angels. What else do they have in common? None of them pitched in a World Series game before 2002.

Hey Mark can you spell F-L-U-K-E ? Just like the 2000 White Sox.

Like Jack McDowell said in his interview "very few teams get into the playoffs the first time and win it all..."

These are the WHITE SOX we are talking about. You know, the team that is simply a hangnail on the fickle finger of fate.

The only way Jon Rauch, Matt Ginter, Edwin Almonte and so forth get to the playoffs is if they buy a ticket. As for me I'll take whatever chances the Sox have on guys who don't take a wizz in their pants when they walk out to the mound, especially in an August pennant race or in October.

i'd take a fluke world series ring, wouldn't you? judging from your "go for it all this season" mentality, you're certainly not after several years of sustained success, right?

gogosoxgogo
01-23-2003, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Mark says:

What do these players have in common? Well, they were on the pitching staff of the 2002 Anaheim Angels. What else do they have in common? None of them pitched in a World Series game before 2002.

Hey Mark can you spell F-L-U-K-E ? Just like the 2000 White Sox.

Like Jack McDowell said in his interview "very few teams get into the playoffs the first time and win it all..."

These are the WHITE SOX we are talking about. You know, the team that is simply a hangnail on the fickle finger of fate.

The only way Jon Rauch, Matt Ginter, Edwin Almonte and so forth get to the playoffs is if they buy a ticket. As for me I'll take whatever chances the Sox have on guys who don't take a wizz in their pants when they walk out to the mound, especially in an August pennant race or in October.

Lip

Oh come on Lip, you get into the playoffs by being the best team and winning the most games. There's no relation with who has been there in the past. If that means that the best players possible for our situation are a bunch of rookies, fine, then they're the best players. I don't care if some pitcher has been to the post season 20 times, if he has an ERA of 5.5, I don't want him!

southpaw40
01-23-2003, 09:10 AM
When I heard of the trade yesterday, I went home and looked at his scounting reports from the past several years (from STATS). It was mentioned more than once that he was a former bar bouncer, and had no fear of pitching inside if the situation called for it. IMO some of the Sox pitchers can learn from this veteran in that regard. I think what he brings is a toughness that some of our pitchers either don't have or haven't learned yet, and maybe they can learn from him.

southpaw40
01-23-2003, 09:13 AM
.....of course what I meant to say is, "when I heard of the SIGNING" yesterday....

gogosoxgogo
01-23-2003, 09:37 AM
From a Cardinals fan at the MLB.com message boards:

Rick came over last year after getting run out of Colorado (go figure) he actually was pretty good down the stretch. He doesn't throw real hard tops out in the low 90s at best. When he came in last year he wanted to prove he could still pitch in the majors. I think that determination plus being on a penant drive helped him to focus his talent. If he keeps that drive he'll be fine for you guys. If not you'll be running him out of town also.

Lip Man 1
01-23-2003, 11:14 AM
Jeremy (once again) talks about "contending every season."

Jeremy the way you do that is the way other successful organizations operate... they spend money and constantly RELOAD, not REBUILD. Remember Jeremy given the track record of the Sox in resigning their own, these "can't miss kids" aren't going to be around long enough to "contend every year."

Your philosophy also assumes that the Sox can keep refilling the rotation with top kids year after year after year (something they have been unable to do especially when this "rebuilding with kids" philosophy took root on July 31, 1997.)

I asked some questions on another thread but in case some of you missed it, allow me to post an abridged version here:

1. The White Sox have suddenly become real "contenders" to win the division and get into the playoffs. Yet these same folks are willing to trust 20% of the starting rotation THIS YEAR, to a pitcher who has appeared in what ten games in the bigs? and who had arm surgery?

2. These same fans keep talking about his "potential" yet also want to win NOW. Somehow that mix seems odd to me, you can't have it both ways.

3. Some of the fans have been stating that they also want the Sox to be able to contend every year. So what exactly is WRONG with the idea of the club's top pitching prospects spending three or four years in the high minors actually LEARING how to pitch? Doesn't it make sense to think that by actually learing what to do and how to do it, that this will only INCREASE the Sox chances for consistently "contending?"

I'm speaking tonight with a former Sox All Star pitcher for the February Q & A. IN FOUR YEARS this guy threw a TOTAL of 21 innings with the Sox! When he finally was deemed ready for the majors, he exploded and had a stunningly good rookie season. My question is, what EXACTLY is wrong with that philosophy?

Lip

maurice
01-23-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Ventura23Fan
That is not a fair comparison since Gordon spent a good part of his career as a starter.

Okay. I'll be more specific. Neither pitcher has started in the last three years. During that period, White posted a solid 3.84 ERA in 232 innings (including a 7.23 ERA at Coors in 2002). Gordon posted a strong 3.38 ERA, but only pitched a total of 88 innings.

maurice
01-23-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Yet these same folks are willing to trust 20% of the starting rotation THIS YEAR, to a pitcher who has appeared in what ten games in the bigs?

I don't mean to quibble Lip, especially since I agree with your main point ("win now"). However, a typical #5 starter (if there is such a person) starts significantly fewer than 20% of his team's games, due to off days, etc. I'm more concerned with Garland and Wright, who (if the current rotation holds) collectively can be expected to start almost three times as many games as Rauch.

The Sox should be big winners if two of those three step up (ERA under 4.00 with 30+ starts) in 2003. You don't need a stellar #5 to make the postseason, and once you get there, your #5 will pitch out of the pen (if at all) anyway.

Personally, I'm not convinced Rauch and Ginter need more time at AAA, where they've been dominant at times. It's virtually ideal to break in your prospects by pitching them in the #5 starter and long relief roles. With recent acquisitions, the Sox currently have the luxury of doing that.

gogosoxgogo
01-23-2003, 12:25 PM
More from a Cardinals fan:
I think I remember reading that while in Colorado, White shortened his step towards the plate in order to get more movement on his pitches. It didn't seem to work. Over in St. Louis he just got lucky, although I realy liked his attitude and willingness to go right after hitters. I would view all of last season as a fluke, and expect numbers more similar to his previous 6 years. Approximately 2 strikeouts every 3 innings. WHIP around 1.4, average control.

One of his secrets to success with the cardinals was excellent control. He had only 3 walks in 22 innings. Resulting in a WHIP of 0.73. If he can keep those walks down with you guys, he'll do just fine.

basilesox
01-23-2003, 12:33 PM
I dont know if someone else mentioned this. I didnt bother reading all 80+ posts, but he does have playoff experience from last year. Something that I think is very important, because that is where we will be sitting at the end of the year. (in my opinion)

hold2dibber
01-23-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
1. The White Sox have suddenly become real "contenders" to win the division and get into the playoffs. Yet these same folks are willing to trust 20% of the starting rotation THIS YEAR, to a pitcher who has appeared in what ten games in the bigs? and who had arm surgery?

I think you're greatly overestimating the importance of a 5th starter. Looking around the league, I don't know if there is another AL team other than the Yankees who has a no. 5 starter that I'd take over Rauch. Plus, as someone else has noted, a no. 5 starter gets only about 20+ starts, not the 30 or so the no. 1-4 guys get. If I had to pick the three key guys for the Sox' success this year, they'd be Garland, Wright and Jimenez. Anything Rauch add is gravy.

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
2. These same fans keep talking about his "potential" yet also want to win NOW. Somehow that mix seems odd to me, you can't have it both ways.

At some point in time, you have to pull the trigger and let the young guys have their shot. Based upon what I say of him at the end of last year, he looks ready to me.

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
3. Some of the fans have been stating that they also want the Sox to be able to contend every year. So what exactly is WRONG with the idea of the club's top pitching prospects spending three or four years in the high minors actually LEARING how to pitch? Doesn't it make sense to think that by actually learing what to do and how to do it, that this will only INCREASE the Sox chances for consistently "contending?"

I'm speaking tonight with a former Sox All Star pitcher for the February Q & A. IN FOUR YEARS this guy threw a TOTAL of 21 innings with the Sox! When he finally was deemed ready for the majors, he exploded and had a stunningly good rookie season. My question is, what EXACTLY is wrong with that philosophy?


Well, there's nothing wrong with that if the guy actually needs that much time to learn how to pitch. But I'll turn this question around - what is wrong with putting a top pitching prospect in the 5th spot in the rotation (or in long relief) if you feel he is major league ready and has learned how to pitch?

gogosoxgogo
01-23-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by basilesox
I dont know if someone else mentioned this. I didnt bother reading all 80+ posts, but he does have playoff experience from last year. Something that I think is very important, because that is where we will be sitting at the end of the year. (in my opinion)

Playoff experience is overrated.

jeremyb1
01-23-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy (once again) talks about "contending every season."


i'll address your issues in my post but that wasn't really my point. my point was that you've acted in the past as though you'd take one world series and be content. advocating we deal our best young players for veterans with little left in the tank or a year left on their contracts can't allow you to do little else in my opinion.

Lip Jeremy the way you do that is the way other successful organizations operate... they spend money and constantly RELOAD, not REBUILD. Remember Jeremy given the track record of the Sox in resigning their own, these "can't miss kids" aren't going to be around long enough to "contend every year."

is that the oakland model you're talking about? or the twins? even the braves have been winning with mostly home grown talent the last ten years. who are the cards best players? pujolz and morris. neither of them were signed as free agents. we've been through the discussion about finances too many times to rehash it again. could a team win by constantly reloading by signing new free agents? sure, they could but not with a 50 million dollar payroll and jr has proven time and time again he's not going to allow it to go much past that.

garland, wright, crede, jimenez, harris, rowand, olivo, marte, glover, buehrle, and paul are all young players who have yet to reach arbitration and as a result are making very little money (probably less than 1 million in every case). how we replace those players with veterans of equal or better talent and keep the payroll below 80 or 90 million is beyond me.

1. The White Sox have suddenly become real "contenders" to win the division and get into the playoffs. Yet these same folks are willing to trust 20% of the starting rotation THIS YEAR, to a pitcher who has appeared in what ten games in the bigs? and who had arm surgery?

i think you're placing way too much emphasis on a team's fifth starter. look at some of the teams who made the playoffs last season. oakland's fifth starter was hiljus to start the season. he didn't last and it didn't seem to hurt them. the braves' was moss a rookie who buy definition had nothing but potential. the potential guy turned out pretty well in that case, eh? i can't even name san francisco's or arizona's fifth starter to start the season can you? boston's (they won 90+ games) was hermanson or castillo i believe, neither of which lasted in the season in the rotation and both of whom will not be returning to the red sox last season.

for a pitcher with as little experience as rauch has (which is many number five starters), he's about as much of a lock as you can get assuming he's healthy. you act as though we're trotting an a ball pitcher out there. by their nature, number five starters are inexperienced and are not major league veterans. rauch is better than most number fives.

2. These same fans keep talking about his "potential" yet also want to win NOW. Somehow that mix seems odd to me, you can't have it both ways.

i'd love for you to explain to me how we can't have it both ways. why can't a team be expected to win 90 games with the potential to win 98? you act as though players who haven't reached their potential can't perform well in the present. now that's an illogical statement if i've ever heard one.

if garland and wright merely repeat last season, garland will be at least an average 3 and wright will be close to an average 4. however, both players can still improve and yet not reach their very high potential and be above average 3 and 4 starters. the same certainly goes for rauch in the fifth spot. why can't a player be good just because he hasn't reached his full potential?

3. Some of the fans have been stating that they also want the Sox to be able to contend every year. So what exactly is WRONG with the idea of the club's top pitching prospects spending three or four years in the high minors actually LEARING how to pitch? Doesn't it make sense to think that by actually learing what to do and how to do it, that this will only INCREASE the Sox chances for consistently "contending?"

the problem is that you're assuming that pitchers can learn how to pitch in the majors in AAA. i don't think that's the case. garland had an era under 2 in AAA when he was 20 years old. what makes you think he could've become a better major league pitcher by lowering his AAA era to 1.5 or 1? it seems to me that he learned all that he could learn in the minors and needed to pitch to major leaguers and work with a major league pitching coach to take the next step. i don't see how you can argue that he's hurt the team the last two seasons. if he wasn't good enough to be a long reliever or at least a number four starter last season i don't know who was. and at the same time he was gaining valuable experience. the same applies to wright last season. he was at least a number five starter for us and he gained valuable experience.

I'm speaking tonight with a former Sox All Star pitcher for the February Q & A. IN FOUR YEARS this guy threw a TOTAL of 21 innings with the Sox! When he finally was deemed ready for the majors, he exploded and had a stunningly good rookie season. My question is, what EXACTLY is wrong with that philosophy?

i don't think one instance really proves any point. that's a pretty small sample size. it depends on the pitcher. buehrle didn't need any AAA ball to dominate the majors, garland obviously learned all he could from AAA ball in half a season. some pitchers can benefit from extended time in the minors but others can't. would we really be doing ourselves justice if buehrle was still pitching in the minors this season?

upnorthsox
01-23-2003, 02:16 PM
Interesting stuff guys, but as far as giving starts to a young unproven pitcher as being odd I'd have to disagree. Look at these 2002 playoff teams:

team, pitcher, 2002 starts, pre-2002 starts
Angels, Lackey, 18, 0
Giants, Jensen, 30, 7
Twins, Lohse, 31, 16
Santana, 14, 9
Kinney, 12, 8
A's, Harang, 15, 0
Cards, Simontacchi, 24, 0
Braves, Moss, 29, 1

So it would appear that giving significant starts to unproven young pitchers is more the norm than odd.

I'm sure it'd be pointed out that the D-Backs and Yanks decided to go with a more vet rotation which is fair, but interestingly in their WS yr the year before, they both went with starters(Ellis 17 starts D-Backs, Lilly 21 starts Yanks) who had little or no career starts.

I'd have no problem with a Suppan et al if we could sign them to a minor league contract and invite them to ST to compete with Rauch but I don't see a pressing need to lock Rauch out of the rotation at this point, which is what signing another starter to a major league contract would effectively do, just because Rauch is young and has yet to prove himself.

Anyhow, interesting stuff guys keep it coming

MarkEdward
01-23-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

[QUOTE]Hey Mark can you spell F-L-U-K-E ? Just like the 2000 White Sox.

How ignorant of you to write them off so quickly.

Like Jack McDowell said in his interview "very few teams get into the playoffs the first time and win it all..."

Oh, well, since McDowell said it, it must be true.

The only way Jon Rauch, Matt Ginter, Edwin Almonte and so forth get to the playoffs is if they buy a ticket. As for me I'll take whatever chances the Sox have on guys who don't take a wizz in their pants when they walk out to the mound, especially in an August pennant race or in October.
Lip

This paragraph makes no sense to me.

HawkDJ
01-23-2003, 07:20 PM
Playoff experience is NOT overrated. Think about us in 2000 in the playoffs. EEK! some serious first time playoffs showing in most of the team.

Also more on the deal...he has a $1.3 million team option for 2004 with a $150,000 buyout.

bc2k
01-23-2003, 07:53 PM
I think having a huge pair is more important than playoff experience. Koch, Gordon, and from what I've just heard about White all have huge pairs. Wunsch, unfortunately for the Sox (and himself) has pequeno marbles. This reputation started in the 2000 playoffs and continued through last year in big games.

I guess you can say Wunsch throws meatballs because of his little bb's, when he should throw bb's because of his meatballs.

Daver
01-23-2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
I think having a huge pair is more important than playoff experience. Koch, Gordon, and from what I've just heard about White all have huge pairs. Wunsch, unfortunately for the Sox (and himself) has pequeno marbles. This reputation started in the 2000 playoffs and continued through last year in big games.

I guess you can say Wunsch throws meatballs because of his little bb's, when he should throw bb's because of his meatballs.

You never cease to amaze me in your unbased allegories that have almost no basis in type of fact or statistic,but are based on your own narrowminded veiw of what is talent and what isn't,which is far more questionable than any of your allegories.

RedPinStripes
01-23-2003, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
I think having a huge pair is more important than playoff experience. Koch, Gordon, and from what I've just heard about White all have huge pairs. Wunsch, unfortunately for the Sox (and himself) has pequeno marbles. This reputation started in the 2000 playoffs and continued through last year in big games.

I guess you can say Wunsch throws meatballs because of his little bb's, when he should throw bb's because of his meatballs.

I know people on Crack that make more sense then you.

I'm watching goldmember btw. :D:

Bmr31
01-23-2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by daver
You never cease to amaze me in your unbased allegories that have almost no basis in type of fact or statistic,but are based on your own narrowminded veiw of what is talent and what isn't,which is far more questionable than any of your allegories.


Now, now daver, lol. Underneath it all, i kinda agree with him. For instance, Keith foulke will always have better stats than Koch, but i think the sox made a huge upgrade at closer. Koch is a MAN and when the big game is on the line, hes gonna be bringing 100 mph heat. A closer is an attitude and Foulke never had it and never will.....

delben91
01-23-2003, 08:51 PM
Originally posted by daver
You never cease to amaze me in your unbased allegories that have almost no basis in type of fact or statistic,but are based on your own narrowminded veiw of what is talent and what isn't,which is far more questionable than any of your allegories.

Besides, without posts like bc2k's filling in gaps, how would we ever be able to get nearly 100 replies to a thread on Rick White?!?

What's next, 200 replies to a thread on Mike Porzio? Or maybe 50 on one about Brian Manning?

:cool:

Daver
01-23-2003, 08:53 PM
Originally posted by delben91
Besides, without posts like bc2k's filling in gaps, how would we ever be able to get nearly 100 replies to a thread on Rick White?!?

What's next, 200 replies to a thread on Mike Porzio? Or maybe 50 on one about Brian Manning?

:cool:

I have one word for you.

Tomato.

:)

gogosoxgogo
01-23-2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by HawkDJ2k2
Playoff experience is NOT overrated. Think about us in 2000 in the playoffs. EEK! some serious first time playoffs showing in most of the team.

Also more on the deal...he has a $1.3 million team option for 2004 with a $150,000 buyout.
We lost that year in the playoffs because Seatle was a superior team. We didn't have an amazing team that would have gone far in the playoffs with or without post season experience.

Originally posted by bc2k
I think having a huge pair is more important than playoff experience. Koch, Gordon, and from what I've just heard about White all have huge pairs. Wunsch, unfortunately for the Sox (and himself) has pequeno marbles. This reputation started in the 2000 playoffs and continued through last year in big games.

I guess you can say Wunsch throws meatballs because of his little bb's, when he should throw bb's because of his meatballs.
Don't underestimate Wunsch, he is still extremely effective against lefties. So long as he isn't used against righties, Wunsch is awesome.

soxguy
01-23-2003, 11:45 PM
whats the matter with all of you? We go out and sign a veteeran right hander to eat up some inning and keep our really good relievers healthy, and people complain? We only paid the guy 750k, in baseball thats nothing...jeez. Anytime you can add a guy who pitched in the playoffs, comes from the other league(where hitters arent familiar with him, AND he costs us nothing, than the conclusion is that no sox fan should complain. lifes too short.......

Bmr31
01-23-2003, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
whats the matter with all of you? We go out and sign a veteeran right hander to eat up some inning and keep our really good relievers healthy, and people complain? We only paid the guy 750k, in baseball thats nothing...jeez. Anytime you can add a guy who pitched in the playoffs, comes from the other league(where hitters arent familiar with him, AND he costs us nothing, than the conclusion is that no sox fan should complain. lifes too short.......

I agree. Plus, hes a decent pitcher.

MarkEdward
01-23-2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
comes from the other league(where hitters arent familiar with him

Worked real well for Todd Ritchie, eh?

fuzzy_patters
01-24-2003, 12:02 AM
Worked real well for Todd Ritchie, eh?

I think, if you actually look at his numbers before you post, you will see that Rick White has pitched better than Todd Ritchie everywhere White has been except for those his time in Colorado. That covers five other major league teams.

gogosoxgogo
01-24-2003, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I think, if you actually look at his numbers before you post, you will see that Rick White has pitched better than Todd Ritchie everywhere White has been except for those his time in Colorado. That covers five other major league teams.

One's a reliever, one's a starter. It's hard to compare the two.

Bmr31
01-24-2003, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
I think, if you actually look at his numbers before you post, you will see that Rick White has pitched better than Todd Ritchie everywhere White has been except for those his time in Colorado. That covers five other major league teams.

Besides, white is just a piece to a puzzle. Its not like its a huge risk....

fuzzy_patters
01-24-2003, 12:05 AM
Sub 4 ERA's are good regardless of when you pitch.

Bmr31
01-24-2003, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Sub 4 ERA's are good regardless of when you pitch.

hmmm, i wouldnt go that far. Set up guys usually have pretty low era and whip. White is average at best, but hes an obvious upgrade to Ginter.

gogosoxgogo
01-24-2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
hmmm, i wouldnt go that far. Set up guys usually have pretty low era and whip. White is average at best, but hes an obvious upgrade to Ginter.

My big worry is who will be our long relief man next year. With Ginter gone, I don't think we have any one to fill that role.