PDA

View Full Version : Kenny Rogers?


Saracen
02-05-2003, 07:09 AM
I've been wondering all winter why the Sox haven't tried to sign Kenny Rogers. Looks like they're finally thinking about it:

Sox May Take a Gamble (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-030204soxrogers,0,5363938.story?coll=cs%2Dhome%2Dh eadlines)

I think it would be a fantastic move to sign him cheap - he really screwed up not taking the Rangers offer a few months ago.

gogosoxgogo
02-05-2003, 07:54 AM
I'd love Rogers in a Sox uni. I figured this wasn't going to happen because it was brought up at Soxfest a bunch of times, with KW responding how we are taped out. If we can get him for cheap, all the better.

moochpuppy
02-05-2003, 08:23 AM
Williams has not made an offer to Rogers' agent, Scott Boras, but confirmed he is investigating the possibility.

This would be the only thing I can see holding this deal up.

That includes a 3-1 mark and 2.38 ERA in five starts against the Twins. He worked seven innings in all three starts against Minnesota last season.

You gotta like that out of the 5th spot in the rotation.

David Justice is among the potential run-producers who remain available.

Hasn't he been to the post season every year of his career?

34 Inch Stick
02-05-2003, 09:01 AM
You think JR and KW would be happy to give a low ball offer to Boras. Even if they didn't need Rogers I'm sure they would love to negotiate a contract with him from a position of power.

hold2dibber
02-05-2003, 09:38 AM
The article indicates that Pittsburgh and Boston are other potential suitors for Rogers. I would imagine that, all things equal, he would rather pitch for the Sox than for the Pirates. But if the Boston money is at the same level as the Sox are offering, I'm guessing Boras will avoid JR and send Rogers to the BoSox.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 10:06 AM
Kenny is done. This is a stupid move IMO. You already have 5th starters on your team. What's the best scenario for Kenny Rogers? He comes in and pitches like a 4 instead of a 5??? Rauch has top of the rotation potential by year's end, but we are this quick to put him back in AAA???? He has nothing to learn/proove there.

hold2dibber
02-05-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Kenny is done. This is a stupid move IMO. You already have 5th starters on your team. What's the best scenario for Kenny Rogers? He comes in and pitches like a 4 instead of a 5??? Rauch has top of the rotation potential by year's end, but we are this quick to put him back in AAA???? He has nothing to learn/proove there.

The good thing about a signing like this is it, again, would give the Sox more depth. The only other plus would be that he is left-handed and the Twins (who have beaten the crap out of the Sox the last two years) struggle against lefties. But I agree that Rauch may be every bit as good as Rogers this year and very possibly better.

OEO Magglio
02-05-2003, 11:21 AM
I think signing Kenny Rogers would be great for the sox, Rogers had an era in the 3's last year, also it gives the sox more depth, if someone got injured i would feel pretty confident with Rauch filling in.

CHISOXFAN13
02-05-2003, 11:37 AM
Obviously Randar didn't look at Rogers' stats from last season. He's not done by any means. The guy is a crafty veteran who knows how to pitch.

His numbers against Minnesota are good enough reason to take a stab.

Also, if the Sox do sign Rigers, I'd like to see the rotation stack up like this:


1. Buerhle
2. Colon
3. Garland
4. Rogers
5. Wright

Flipping Buerhle and Colon and Garland and Rogers would also be fine. The two lefties against the left-handed dominated Twinkies would be huge.

siugrad25
02-05-2003, 11:39 AM
OEO I agree with you. I think if you have the opportunity to take this chance on him you take it. We can't rest the whole season on ifs from some of these pitchers and if this means getting a proven guy at a reasonable cost, why not do it? My lord, the Yanks have like 25 starting pitchers, and we're worried about having more than 3 or 4. My theory is stop the bitching and be happy that the Sox are actually trying and making moves.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
Obviously Randar didn't look at Rogers' stats from last season. He's not done by any means. The guy is a crafty veteran who knows how to pitch.

His numbers against Minnesota are good enough reason to take a stab.

Also, if the Sox do sign Rigers, I'd like to see the rotation stack up like this:


1. Buerhle
2. Colon
3. Garland
4. Rogers
5. Wright

Flipping Buerhle and Colon and Garland and Rogers would also be fine. The two lefties against the left-handed dominated Twinkies would be huge.

What is he, 45? Look at his second half numbers. They declined from the first half with people hitting .270 and a WHIP OVER 1.4!!!!! He only had 107 K's in 210 IP!

He is all but done. Add in our defense up the middle, and how do you expect him to fare????

duke of dorwood
02-05-2003, 11:49 AM
I dont think we should retard Rauch growth any further by signing Rogers. We already barely need a fifth starter the first 2 months anyway.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
I dont think we should retard Rauch growth any further by signing Rogers. We already barely need a fifth starter the first 2 months anyway.

I hate that idea of skipping the #5 guy. You risk wearing out your 1-4 guys before the end of the season/post-season. In addition, you don't allow your #5 to pitch on a regular rotation and risk injury/inconsistent. Starters don't pitch well only pitching every 10-15 days. This idea has a high likelihood of backfiring.

CHISOXFAN13
02-05-2003, 11:57 AM
Even if Rauch does come in and pitch beyond expectations, don't forget that Wright's ERA was in the 5's. Insurance doesn't hurt. It's what the Yankees do every season.

CHISOXFAN13
02-05-2003, 12:02 PM
FYI, in Rogers' last five starts, he allowed two runs in seven innings, zero in six, five in five, two in seven and two in seven.

Where I come from 11 earned runs in 32 innings isn't half bad. Plus, he was ninth in the league in walks allowed.

SoxxoS
02-05-2003, 12:08 PM
Good call, Chisoxfan.

Depth is key. That's all there is too it. Look at the Twins for example. Last year they lost Radke and Mays for significant parts of the season, but Loshe and Santana filled in rather nicely.

I mean, I love Rauch's potential, but I would much rather see Kenny Rodgers in that 5 spot. Nobody really knows if Rauch is 100% anyway, so let him pitch at Charlotte and evaluate. And as Chisoxfan, what happens if Wright or Garland regresses. We all hope not, and it shouldn't happen, but it could. That is when we can stick Rodgers in the 4 spot and bring up Rauch (if he is pitching well.) This move would give us a lot of depth and options, and you can't have enough of those for a 162 game season.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
FYI, in Rogers' last five starts, he allowed two runs in seven innings, zero in six, five in five, two in seven and two in seven.

Where I come from 11 earned runs in 32 innings isn't half bad. Plus, he was ninth in the league in walks allowed.

Pick a small enough sample size and you're sure to find something to fit your arguement. Hoever, it doesn't hold water.

Do you expect him to IMPROVE his numbers? Let's get real here.

FYI, In Rauch's last 2 outings, both against the Twins, he gave up 3 ER in 12 IP, with 8 K's and 1 BB. See how that works?

NewyorkSoxFan
02-05-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Pick a small enough sample size and you're sure to find something to fit your arguement. Hoever, it doesn't hold water.

Do you expect him to IMPROVE his numbers? Let's get real here.

FYI, In Rauch's last 2 outings, both against the Twins, he gave up 1 ER in 12 IP, with 8 K's and 1 BB. See how that works?


Randar how can you be so sure that Rauch is ready to take on this spot. He hasn't pitched a full season in the major leagues. He had a nice finish to the season, but he shouldn't be annointed as the automatic #5 starter. It would be good to perhaps watch and learn from Burlhe, Colon, and Rogers so that he can continue his development. Whether that be in the minors or in the bullpen.

Garland didn't come out his first full year and light up the league as everyone had thought with all the comparisons to Kevin Brown. It is only now after 3 years that we are starting to see the progression of his pitching.

I am a Rauch fan, but a half of season watching or pitching in 3A won't hurt him one bit. Nobody is going to have their growth retarded with that. Just ask Joe Crede who finally got his chance last year and he was ready for it.


NYSF

voodoochile
02-05-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
What is he, 45? Look at his second half numbers. They declined from the first half with people hitting .270 and a WHIP OVER 1.4!!!!! He only had 107 K's in 210 IP!

He is all but done. Add in our defense up the middle, and how do you expect him to fare????

I think our up the middle defense is going to be improved from last season. Valentin back at SS and Jimenez at 2B are going to give the Sox more range at those postions than they've had in years. Add in Crede - who should allow Valentin to play more toward 2B because of Joe's ability to go into the hole to make a play - and the Sox should be much stronger up the middle (at least in the infield where it really counts) than they have been in a long long time...

Randar68
02-05-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by NewyorkSoxFan
Randar how can you be so sure that Rauch is ready to take on this spot. He hasn't pitched a full season in the major leagues. He had a nice finish to the season, but he shouldn't be annointed as the automatic #5 starter. It would be good to perhaps watch and learn from Burlhe, Colon, and Rogers so that he can continue his development. Whether that be in the minors or in the bullpen.

Garland didn't come out his first full year and light up the league as everyone had thought with all the comparisons to Kevin Brown. It is only now after 3 years that we are starting to see the progression of his pitching.

I am a Rauch fan, but a half of season watching or pitching in 3A won't hurt him one bit. Nobody is going to have their growth retarded with that. Just ask Joe Crede who finally got his chance last year and he was ready for it.


NYSF


Garland wasn't the #1 prospect in baseball at any point in his career. Rauch is 100% recovered as of last fall. He has top of the rotation potential. If you don't get him in there this year with Mark and Colon in the top of the rotation, then when in the heck do you? You have to give your prospects the opportunity when they are ready. Jon is 24 already. He is ready to play every day in the major leagues. If you put him in there, you have the chance to have a dominant pitcher who could have a Mulder/Hudson type of effect in his first full season. You NEVER will have that chance with Kenny Rogers.

NewyorkSoxFan
02-05-2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Garland wasn't the #1 prospect in baseball at any point in his career. Rauch is 100% recovered as of last fall. He has top of the rotation potential. If you don't get him in there this year with Mark and Colon in the top of the rotation, then when in the heck do you? You have to give your prospects the opportunity when they are ready. Jon is 24 already. He is ready to play every day in the major leagues. If you put him in there, you have the chance to have a dominant pitcher who could have a Mulder/Hudson type of effect in his first full season. You NEVER will have that chance with Kenny Rogers.


First of all Garland was a highly regarded prospect when he was drafted he was definitely in the top portion of the draft. As far as potential let me remind you of the words of the great Ron Schueler with "Ruffcorn, Baldwin" and some other guy who is working at a bank now. Potential does not translate to success.

The problem with baseball now is that guys don't have time to develop. If they aren't getting lit up every 5th day by the age of 22 then they are considered a bust. You act like he is approaching 30. No one has said leave him in the minors all season, but the Sox are trying to win now. You need experience in your rotation, we are not the Royals, or Devil Rays who are trying to develop the guys in their system.

We aren't even out of the woods with Garland and Wright, and they pitched all season, and now you want to throw this guy in their without him having to prove anything. Just because Baseball America rated him as the #1 prospect. PLEASEEE!

NYSF

pudge
02-05-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Garland wasn't the #1 prospect in baseball at any point in his career. Rauch is 100% recovered as of last fall. He has top of the rotation potential. If you don't get him in there this year with Mark and Colon in the top of the rotation, then when in the heck do you? You have to give your prospects the opportunity when they are ready. Jon is 24 already. He is ready to play every day in the major leagues. If you put him in there, you have the chance to have a dominant pitcher who could have a Mulder/Hudson type of effect in his first full season. You NEVER will have that chance with Kenny Rogers.

I'm not going to pick this fight with Randar again, I'm glad others have taken over for me.

Although, Randar, if you don't like the idea of not pitching the #5 at the start of the season, you may want to root for the Sox to sign Rogers. If Rogers is added, there's no way he'll agree to sit out the first few weeks of the season. (And KW said at SoxFest that he DOES plan on skipping the #5 in the first month.) Just a thought.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by NewyorkSoxFan
First of all Garland was a highly regarded prospect when he was drafted he was definitely in the top portion of the draft. As far as potential let me remind you of the words of the great Ron Schueler with "Ruffcorn, Baldwin" and some other guy who is working at a bank now. Potential does not translate to success.

The problem with baseball now is that guys don't have time to develop. If they aren't getting lit up every 5th day by the age of 22 then they are considered a bust. You act like he is approaching 30. No one has said leave him in the minors all season, but the Sox are trying to win now. You need experience in your rotation, we are not the Royals, or Devil Rays who are trying to develop the guys in their system.

We aren't even out of the woods with Garland and Wright, and they pitched all season, and now you want to throw this guy in their without him having to prove anything. Just because Baseball America rated him as the #1 prospect. PLEASEEE!

NYSF


He's 24 years old and was the #1 prospect in baseball due to his pitching and talent at the AA level and above. Nopt because he was a 1st round draft pick like Garland was. Roy Oswalt was in the minors the same year Jon was POY.

Where would we be is Mark was still in AAA? hindsight is 20/20, but this kid deserves this shot and the support. Kenny ROgers is old news.

Kenny's ERA the last 4 season were 4.19, 4.55, 6.19, and 3.85. Sorry, but he's not getting any better at this point. There's as much chance for Kenny to have a 6+ ERA as there is for him to have one under 4. After seeing how long they stuck with Ritchie last season, do you want to see the same stubbornness with Kenny Rogers???

He's 38 years old for Christ's sake!

Randar68
02-05-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by pudge
I'm not going to pick this fight with Randar again, I'm glad others have taken over for me.

Although, Randar, if you don't like the idea of not pitching the #5 at the start of the season, you may want to root for the Sox to sign Rogers. If Rogers is added, there's no way he'll agree to sit out the first few weeks of the season. (And KW said at SoxFest that he DOES plan on skipping the #5 in the first month.) Just a thought.

The worst part of the #5 thing is that KW is the one talking about it!!!! For the love of GOD! WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE A COACH!?!?!?!????

CHISOXFAN13
02-05-2003, 01:12 PM
I didn't realize that analyzing a pitcher's last five starts is a small sample size.
You commented about how his second half numbers were awful, so I looked it up and saw that he has one outing (7ER) that damaged his numbers.

Regardless, this will be my last post in this thread because it's not worth arguing about, I just think some of us have a little too much faith in a guy who has less than 50 innings of MLB experience and another guy with a 5 plus ERA.

I'm srry, but Kenny Rogers is better than Danny Wright and a hell of a lot more proven that Jon Rauch.

Unregistered
02-05-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
The worst part of the #5 thing is that KW is the one talking about it!!!! For the love of GOD! WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE A COACH!?!?!?!???? Imagine how Joe Torre feels, considering Steinbrenner just went out and added a pitching staff, etc., without Torre even knowing. Reporters kept asking him what he was going to do with 7 starting pitchers and he said ''Talk to George about that... cause personally, i have NO idea.''

Lip Man 1
02-05-2003, 01:25 PM
I never thought I'd say this (somebody shoot me please!) but the day has finally come when Sox management seems to have a better handle on winning NOW, then some of the best fans in baseball.

Considering the promises of a great tomorrow, from either the team or highly regarded prospects, have never come since 1959, I'm encouraged at the sudden raising of the level of intelligence by the organization.

(Now if we could only get the owner to finally shut up with HIS stupid comments...i.e. I (Uncle Jerry) want to win more then the fans do...)

Lip

Randar68
02-05-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
I didn't realize that analyzing a pitcher's last five starts is a small sample size.
You commented about how his second half numbers were awful, so I looked it up and saw that he has one outing (7ER) that damaged his numbers.

Regardless, this will be my last post in this thread because it's not worth arguing about, I just think some of us have a little too much faith in a guy who has less than 50 innings of MLB experience and another guy with a 5 plus ERA.

I'm srry, but Kenny Rogers is better than Danny Wright and a hell of a lot more proven that Jon Rauch.



Rogers has had an ERA under 4 only 2 times in the past 7 seasons and had an ERA OVER 4.5 in 4 of those 7 seasons.... 2 of those seasons were over 5.5 ERA!!!! How much better is he than Garland or Wright?????

7 seasons is a sample size... 5 games is selective representation of the statistics.

Brian26
02-05-2003, 01:35 PM
We asked Kenny straight up after the Friday night seminar, while getting his autograph, if he was considering picking up Finley. He said, matter-of-factly, that he wouldn't pursue anyone who wants over 1.2 million. Take that for what it's worth. Kenny Rogers probably won't come cheap. I rather see Rauch, Josh Stewart and Heredia battle for the #5 spot at this point rather than clogging it up with an over-the-hill Rogers. Someone described him as crafty. I see him getting lit up like Greg Hibbard this year if he comes back. Anyone remember the Dave Steib experiment? Stick with the youngsters. They have a much higher upside and it improves team chemistry for the long-haul.

Cheryl
02-05-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
I never thought I'd say this (somebody shoot me please!) but the day has finally come when Sox management seems to have a better handle on winning NOW...
Lip

I'm not going to get into the rest of that, but this is something I've been thinking about lately. I mean, what happened? Suddenly we have management that looks serious about winning. And about doing something about the eroding fan base. I like it, but it's weird.

pudge
02-05-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Stick with the youngsters. They have a much higher upside and it improves team chemistry for the long-haul.

Works for the Yankees!

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Rogers has had an ERA under 4 only 2 times in the past 7 seasons and had an ERA OVER 4.5 in 4 of those 7 seasons.... 2 of those seasons were over 5.5 ERA!!!! How much better is he than Garland or Wright?????

7 seasons is a sample size... 5 games is selective representation of the statistics.

You can throw all the stats you want at us, the fact remains that Rogers would be an upgrade to Rauch. He has proven he can pitch in the majors. What has Rauch done? Top of the rotation potential by years end? Thats ridiculous. Id be happy if he has proven he BELONGS in the majors, by years end.

Brian26
02-05-2003, 01:43 PM
"Works for the Yankees"

Um, actually, it does.

Soriano, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Bernie, El Duque...
I hate that argument that the Yankees buy championships. The core of that team has come up through their farm system together since the late 90s, and they've supplemented the core of youngsters with some outstanding pieces from the outside through the years.

hold2dibber
02-05-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by pudge
I'm not going to pick this fight with Randar again, I'm glad others have taken over for me.

Although, Randar, if you don't like the idea of not pitching the #5 at the start of the season, you may want to root for the Sox to sign Rogers. If Rogers is added, there's no way he'll agree to sit out the first few weeks of the season. (And KW said at SoxFest that he DOES plan on skipping the #5 in the first month.) Just a thought.

If the Sox were to sign Rogers, I'm quite sure Wright would be the no. 5 starter.

ScottyTheSoxFan
02-05-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
"Works for the Yankees"

Um, actually, it does.

El Duque...

he was signed and played in the minors for a short time. i would not consider him with jeter, posada etc.

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 02:03 PM
something to consider (despite my best efforts i couldn't find the info) is draft pick compensation. if we have to give up a first round pick to sign rogers that certainly changes things. maybe you'd give 2 mil to rogers but would you give up two mil and honel?

also, 38 year old pitchers are very bit as volatile as 25 year old pitchers.

FanOf14
02-05-2003, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
If the Sox were to sign Rogers, I'm quite sure Wright would be the no. 5 starter.

Just out of curiousity, why is it that everyone seems high on Garland and down on Wright when their stats are similar (Wright is better in some and Garland is better in some) and Wright (262.2 - 5.31ERA) has had about 70% the ML experience as Garland (379.1 innings - 4.65ERA)? I am not saying Wright is better or anything like that, this is just a question out of curiosity. :?:

Randar68
02-05-2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
You can throw all the stats you want at us, the fact remains that Rogers would be an upgrade to Rauch. He has proven he can pitch in the majors.

*****!!!!!!!!!

Proven he can do what? Be 38 years old with an ERA well over 4.5 the past 7 seasons which will only get worse....

Originally posted by Bmr31
Top of the rotation potential by years end? Thats ridiculous. Id be happy if he has proven he BELONGS in the majors, by years end.

It would be awefully hard to prove that if you don't get the chance...wouldn't it???

Randar68
02-05-2003, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
"Works for the Yankees"

Um, actually, it does.

Soriano, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Bernie, El Duque...
I hate that argument that the Yankees buy championships. The core of that team has come up through their farm system together since the late 90s, and they've supplemented the core of youngsters with some outstanding pieces from the outside through the years.

Don't forget Pettite...

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
*****!!!!!!!!!

Proven he can do what? Be 38 years old with an ERA well over 4.5 the past 7 seasons which will only get worse....



It would be awefully hard to prove that if you don't get the chance...wouldn't it???

:gulp:

idseer
02-05-2003, 02:14 PM
acquiring a pitcher like rogers in my opinion is a waste of resources. we've already gotten the help we need in the pitching dept. (and btw the pitching was not all that bad last year)
where we are suspect is our middle infield and catching. why not concentrate on our weakest points?

rogers is going on 39 and has been pointed out is more apt to have a lousy year than a good one. would anyone here have thought this was a good idea following 2001 when he was 5-7 with a 6.19 era going on age 38? i seriously doubt it.

i'd MUCH rather continue to develop rauch than put him once again in aaa. as a 5th starter, the pressure will be much less on him and he's shown the ability to pitch in the ML now! let's not stunt him at this crucial point in his development.

moochpuppy
02-05-2003, 02:23 PM
Just sign Mike Morgan. He hasn't played for us yet.

Unregistered
02-05-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
"Works for the Yankees"

Um, actually, it does.

Soriano, Jeter, Posada, Rivera, Bernie, El Duque...
I hate that argument that the Yankees buy championships. The core of that team has come up through their farm system together since the late 90s, and they've supplemented the core of youngsters with some outstanding pieces from the outside through the years. Ech, give me a break... First off, El Duque was bought after he jumped ship from Cuba... so he doesnt count... and they certainly didnt win any championships with Soriano yet... so that ''core'' consists of all of 4 players that ''came up through their farm system'' on their roster. Lets say this year they win it all... Their entire starting rotation is free agents they bought (save for Pettitte), Matsui, their new outfielder went to the highest bidder, as did Giambi, Contreras,etc... regardless, the claim that the Yankees win championships because of their farm system is at least twice as ridiculous as saying that they win solely because they spend money.

Kilroy
02-05-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by idseer
...as a 5th starter, the pressure will be much less on him and he's shown the ability to pitch in the ML now! let's not stunt him at this crucial point in his development.

Why would the pressure be less on him? I think, in fact, that spot may have more pressure. Who's more likely to be replaced in the rotation, a #1 or a #5? He'd be thinking about that every night. "Gotta get the job done, or they'll give my spot to someone else." I agree that he needs to continue to develop, but the goal is not to develop pitchers, the goal is to win the world series. And if adding Kenny Rogers can help, I'm for that.

I'm not convinced he can. I'd rather see the situation where Rogers wasn't on a team at all, but kept working out, then the Sox picked him up in August. I think he'd be a great help coming in like that.

idseer
02-05-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Why would the pressure be less on him? I think, in fact, that spot may have more pressure. Who's more likely to be replaced in the rotation, a #1 or a #5? He'd be thinking about that every night. "Gotta get the job done, or they'll give my spot to someone else." I agree that he needs to continue to develop, but the goal is not to develop pitchers, the goal is to win the world series. And if adding Kenny Rogers can help, I'm for that.

I'm not convinced he can. I'd rather see the situation where Rogers wasn't on a team at all, but kept working out, then the Sox picked him up in August. I think he'd be a great help coming in like that.

that's a silly analysis. 1st i didn't say there's NO pressure. every kid who ever pitches majors OR minors has THAT pressure. but you tell me ... where is the pressure greater? no colon on the team and rauch HAVING to produce in the 4 spot without missing rotational turns and a probable shorter leash because wins are harder to come by, or the 5th spot with 2 potential 20 game winners in front of you and the likelyhood of more patience in your performance?

as for the goal being winning and not developing ... that's pretty shortsighted too. get crede out of there and buy a 3rd baseman then! not to mention a catcher with experience ... or a centerfielder .... or a 2nd baseman. the fact is the sox HAVE to develop as they go. and if they have $2 mil just lying around wasting away, i say channel it towards their immediate needs. and pitching is NOT an immediate need any longer.

Brian26
02-05-2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
regardless, the claim that the Yankees win championships because of their farm system is at least twice as ridiculous as saying that they win solely because they spend money.

So both claims are ridiculous? Can you offer another reason as to why they win championships? And I'm assuming you don't count the American League Championship or American League Eastern Division Championship as "championships", since Soriano has been with them for both titles. I'm assuming only the "World Series" championship is a championship. Atlanta's had a hell of a run over the past decade, yet by your definition they've only won one lousy Championship. Likewise, by your definition, maybe we need to go examine the Yankees roster from '96 and not even talk about their current rotation, which you brought up, to really analyze who was on the championship team that year and where they were from. I say the keys to that puzzle came from the Yankees system. (And, that includes excellent trades in which they sent prospects to get veteran help. It doesn't include free agent signings).

Paulwny
02-05-2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
Ech, give me a break... First off, El Duque was bought after he jumped ship from Cuba... so he doesnt count... and they certainly didnt win any championships with Soriano yet... so that ''core'' consists of all of 4 players that ''came up through their farm system'' on their roster. Lets say this year they win it all... Their entire starting rotation is free agents they bought (save for Pettitte), Matsui, their new outfielder went to the highest bidder, as did Giambi, Contreras,etc... regardless, the claim that the Yankees win championships because of their farm system is at least twice as ridiculous as saying that they win solely because they spend money.

THANK YOU, I'm tired of arguing about this.
Also remember, Soriano was playing ball in Japan at age 16 and of course the yankmees out bid everyone for his services, just another free agent in my book.

pudge
02-05-2003, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
So both claims are ridiculous? Can you offer another reason as to why they win championships? And I'm assuming you don't count the American League Championship or American League Eastern Division Championship as "championships", since Soriano has been with them for both titles. I'm assuming only the "World Series" championship is a championship. Atlanta's had a hell of a run over the past decade, yet by your definition they've only won one lousy Championship. Likewise, by your definition, maybe we need to go examine the Yankees roster from '96 and not even talk about their current rotation, which you brought up, to really analyze who was on the championship team that year and where they were from. I say the keys to that puzzle came from the Yankees system. (And, that includes excellent trades in which they sent prospects to get veteran help. It doesn't include free agent signings).

Brian, I agree they have done a decent job of bringing up their own prospects, but so have we: Magglio, Lee, Konerko (in a trade for our own Cameron), Wright, Buhrle, etc... but then you have to FILL IN around your own guys... I mean, give me a break, the Yanks payroll is $160 million and growing this season. They have indeed bought a ticket to the post-season for the past five years. You don't win without bringing in some extra arms to help, and Rogers would be a great extra arm. Heck, even the Angels brought in Aaron Sele last season, and while he wasn't good enough to help them in the post-season, he at least ate some innings during the regular season. Rogers would simply be a nice addition... it's EXACTLY the type of move a team like the Yankees would make.

Brian26
02-05-2003, 02:48 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
THANK YOU, I'm tired of arguing about this.
Also remember, Soriano was playing ball in Japan at age 16 and of course the yankmees out bid everyone for his services, just another free agent in my book.

Pauly, by this definition, guys coming out of college nowadays are free agents since we have to ultimately sign them to a contract anyway. Didn't we lose Weaver this way? Most guys who make the majors are playing ball competitively on an organized level in the US at age 16, too.

Unregistered
02-05-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
So both claims are ridiculous? Can you offer another reason as to why they win championships? And I'm assuming you don't count the American League Championship or American League Eastern Division Championship as "championships", since Soriano has been with them for both titles. I'm assuming only the "World Series" championship is a championship. Atlanta's had a hell of a run over the past decade, yet by your definition they've only won one lousy Championship. Likewise, by your definition, maybe we need to go examine the Yankees roster from '96 and not even talk about their current rotation, which you brought up, to really analyze who was on the championship team that year and where they were from. I say the keys to that puzzle came from the Yankees system. (And, that includes excellent trades in which they sent prospects to get veteran help. It doesn't include free agent signings). I'm not necessarily taking either side here, I'm merely rebutting your claim that people are completely wrong to assume that the Yankees ''buy'' the championships they win, and that the credit lies within their farm system. i believe that claim is just naive, and blind to the fact that the Yankees consistently outspend everyone else in the league... as for ''championships'', yes...when people say the White Sox haven't won the Championship since 1917 i don't think they just forget the fact that they won a few division ''championships'' in that time. If those are the ''championships'' that you are hoping the Sox win, then we're rooting for completely different things...

Brian26
02-05-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
If those are the ''championships'' that you are hoping the Sox win, then we're rooting for completely different things...

No, i'm with you on this 100%. A World Series title is what I want too. I'm just saying a run of 10 straight division titles isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Makes for a nice run of competitive baseball over the years. We've had a few division titles over the course of 2 decades, and that's not satisfying at all.

I agree with you on the Yankees point. I think we're arguiing the same thing, but going about it in different ways. Their core came up through their system, but they've added nicely with free agents.

My only disagreement at this point is that Rogers isn't the right "add-on" for the Sox.

Paulwny
02-05-2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Pauly, by this definition, guys coming out of college nowadays are free agents since we have to ultimately sign them to a contract anyway. Didn't we lose Weaver this way? Most guys who make the majors are playing ball competitively on an organized level in the US at age 16, too.

Soriano was never part of the mlb draft, he went to the highest bidder.
Weaver wouldn't sign with the sox and I believe had to wait to be drafted by another team.
Most if not all 16yrs in the US aren't paid to play ball as Soriano was in Japan. Quite a few teams were aware of Soriano's hitting ability but George has the fattest wallet.

Brian26
02-05-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Most if not all 16yrs in the US aren't paid to play ball as Soriano was in Japan. Quite a few teams were aware of Soriano's hitting ability but George has the fattest wallet.

You saved yourself from the silver platter Labron James joke there :) "Most". I agree.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Pauly, by this definition, guys coming out of college nowadays are free agents since we have to ultimately sign them to a contract anyway. Didn't we lose Weaver this way? Most guys who make the majors are playing ball competitively on an organized level in the US at age 16, too.

No they aren't, because you DRAFT THEM!

ugh...

Paulwny
02-05-2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
You saved yourself from the silver platter Labron James joke there :) "Most". I agree.

:smile: I originally had "all" and then thought of James and added "most".

Randar68
02-05-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
You saved yourself from the silver platter Labron James joke there :) "Most". I agree.


Sorry, I thought we were talking about baseball. And in baseball, Kenny Rogers is DONE!

Brian26
02-05-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
No they aren't, because you DRAFT THEM!

ugh...

Ugh back at you.

You draft them, can't sign them, they sit out a specified amount of time, and then they go to the highest bidder. I think the argument went from baseball to sports in general. Don't be a jerk.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Ugh back at you.

You draft them, can't sign them, they sit out a specified amount of time, and then they go to the highest bidder. I think the argument went from baseball to sports in general. Don't be a jerk.

No, dude, then they go back into the draft!!!! If you don't know what you're talking about, then don't...

moochpuppy
02-05-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
No, dude, then they go back into the draft!!!! If you don't know what you're talking about, then don't...


Hmmm......Bobby Hill anyone? JD Drew?

soxguy
02-05-2003, 04:59 PM
kenny rogers would be an excellent p/u, it would just put a cherry on top of kw's best season yet as gm. Kenny rogers brings something only one other starter on the chisox has and thats experience. Remember david wells...yeah yeah yeah i know he sucked while he was here.....but mark buerle wasnt a blip on the radar screen back then and if you have ever heard some of his past interviews he credits that man(david wells) with teaching him how to be a gamer and how to a pitcher instead of a thrower which he definately is not. So if the sox sign kenny rogers it only is a plus, jon rauch is not even ready to be a 5th starter, let alone move up to a different spot in the rotation, he needs minor league seasoning and more time to get his arm right, otherwise right at this point he couldnt make a pimple on kenny rogers ass.

soxguy
02-05-2003, 05:03 PM
not to mention the fact that if they signh a kenny rogers they would be one of the best starting staffs in all of baseball and that includes fort knox in new york. dont forget kenny rogers is another 190 inning guy. That is very important.

idseer
02-05-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
but mark buerle wasnt a blip on the radar screen back then and if you have ever heard some of his past interviews he credits that man(david wells) with teaching him how to be a gamer and how to a pitcher instead of a thrower which he definately is not.

excuse me whilst i barf. i get real tired of hearing this bit of folklore over and over. if david wells was some great teacher why doesn't everyone he gives 3 minutes of advice to turn into a mark buehrle? this is so much crap.
mark is what he is because he's good, has command, and is mature (at least on the mound). NOT because he sat next to bozo wells!

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
jon rauch is not even ready to be a 5th starter, let alone move up to a different spot in the rotation, he needs minor league seasoning and more time to get his arm right, otherwise right at this point he couldnt make a pimple on kenny rogers ass.

You are kidding, right???


:whoflungpoo

Please look at Kenny Rogers last 7 seasons. If you average it out, you don't even get what Garland did last season. Get a clue.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by idseer
excuse me whilst i barf. i get real tired of hearing this bit of folklore over and over. if david wells was some great teacher why doesn't everyone he gives 3 minutes of advice to turn into a mark buehrle? this is so much crap.
mark is what he is because he's good, has command, and is mature (at least on the mound). NOT because he sat next to bozo wells!

BTW, in addition to this, scouts said he had all the savvy and control he has today when he was in A ball. Wells didn't give him some magic beans...

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
dont forget kenny rogers WAS another 190 inning guy. That is very important.


BTW, are you related to Kenny Rogers, because me doth believe you have not looked up his career numbers.

The first half of last season was a FLUKE...

pudge
02-05-2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by moochpuppy
Hmmm......Bobby Hill anyone? JD Drew?

I'm pretty sure JD Drew and Hill did have to go back into the draft, even though Boras tried to declare them as FA...

But the point that was being made was, teams have to shell out the bucks to sign those picks. They can refuse and either go back into the draft, or try to find a loop hole to become a FA. So in essence, they have the power of a FA, when they really shouldn't. The Hill thing still steams me when I think of it.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by pudge
I'm pretty sure JD Drew and Hill did have to go back into the draft, even though Boras tried to declare them as FA...

But the point that was being made was, teams have to shell out the bucks to sign those picks. They can refuse and either go back into the draft, or try to find a loop hole to become a FA. So in essence, they have the power of a FA, when they really shouldn't. The Hill thing still steams me when I think of it.


Hill only ended up getting the money the Sox offerred, but he (and Boras...ahem...common denominator) were offended by the Sox' treatment of them and refused....

Drew got the money he wanted in the first place.... These guys don't have as much leverage as you think...

Ask Matt Harrington if he did the right thing.... there's a lot of risk...

pudge
02-05-2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
BTW, are you related to Kenny Rogers, because me doth believe you have not looked up his career numbers.

The first half of last season was a FLUKE...

I can't resist... what are you smoking? With the exception of 2001, when he only made 20 starts, he's been a horse for the past five years. Double-digit wins each season. No fewer than 195 innings. No more than 70 walks. A 4.20 career ERA?? Something wrong with that?? Did you see what Jamie Moyer did at age 39 last year?

Now don't get me wrong, I have been against Free Agent veterans in the past: the likes of Drabeck, Steib, and even Navarro. But I will take Rogers as a #4 or #5 in a heartbeat. Rauch can wait, or be used as a back up if Wright or Garland bust, or someone gets injured.

maurice
02-05-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
FYI, in Rogers' last five starts, he allowed two runs in seven innings, zero in six, five in five, two in seven and two in seven. Where I come from 11 earned runs in 32 innings isn't half bad.

Originally posted by Randar68
Pick a small enough sample size and you're sure to find something to fit your arguement.

:?:

32 innings is certainly a statistically significant sample. That's got to be around 140 batters faced. It doesn't prove that he's a real good pitcher (which is not suprising, since he's not a real good pitcher). However, it is pretty good evidence that he's not quite washed up yet. Rather, he's still plugging along at a mediocre level. Barring injury, you can expect him to post a 4.something ERA over about 200 innings. Not great, but more than you're likely to get from Esteban Loaiza or any other backup starter.

Irrespective of what the folks on this board think, it looks like Rauch will start the year at AAA (especially given JM's recent statements re. not using a #5 starter). If they do sign Rogers, I hope they view him solely as second-half insurance (along with Loaiza) in the event that one of our young starters fail to perform after a reasonable opportunity.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by pudge
I can't resist... what are you smoking? With the exception of 2001, when he only made 20 starts, he's been a horse for the past five years. Double-digit wins each season. No fewer than 195 innings. No more than 70 walks. A 4.20 career ERA?? Something wrong with that?? Did you see what Jamie Moyer did at age 39 last year?

Now don't get me wrong, I have been against Free Agent veterans in the past: the likes of Drabeck, Steib, and even Navarro. But I will take Rogers as a #4 or #5 in a heartbeat. Rauch can wait, or be used as a back up if Wright or Garland bust, or someone gets injured.

Look, if people want to be shortsighted, then I don't ever want to hear you b!tch and moan like I know you will, when the Sox don't have anyone experienced. You don't bring in a has-been at the behest of a young stud you wish to bring along. Especially if you have a top 2 like we do this year. You have 2 studs at the top to take pressure off the other 3 guys and the bullpen.

Where did this veteran-mayhem come from???? Have you been paying attention to what that theory has done to this team and the one to the North over the 10 years?

gogosoxgogo
02-05-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by maurice
:?:

32 innings is certainly a statistically significant sample. That's got to be around 140 batters faced. It doesn't prove that he's a real good pitcher (which is not suprising, since he's not a real good pitcher). However, it is pretty good evidence that he's not quite washed up yet. Rather, he's still plugging along at a mediocre level. Barring injury, you can expect him to post a 4.something ERA over about 200 innings. Not great, but more than you're likely to get from Esteban Loaiza or any other backup starter.

Irrespective of what the folks on this board think, it looks like Rauch will start the year at AAA (especially given JM's recent statements re. not using a #5 starter). If they do sign Rogers, I hope they view him solely as second-half insurance (along with Loaiza) in the event that one of our young starters fail to perform after a reasonable opportunity.

I don't think Rogers would agree to be 'insurance' and play the season at AAA 'just in case'. He'll want to start.

I like this trade. What those of you have to understand is that we should have the best player possible at each position. NEXT YEAR, I think Rogers will be better than Rauch. Yes, over time, Rauch will probably be much more effective. I don't care about age or potential or if the player gets their feelings hurt, I just want the best damned pitchers possible in our starting rotation.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:41 PM
I'm spent...

this is like pissing into the wind...

Rogers supporters...enjoy a 2004 with 60-70 wins...

soxguy
02-05-2003, 05:42 PM
debate is healthy, but since when is too much pitching a bad thing. I never said kr was the end all be all, but he is a proven veteran that can give you innings. If they get him relatively cheap, even if they pay more than they should on a one year deal, how is this hurting the club again? I don't see it. As for his stats, i know full well what they are thats why i brought em up, maybe you should do your homework.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I don't think Rogers would agree to be 'insurance' and play the season at AAA 'just in case'. He'll want to start.

I like this trade. What those of you have to understand is that we should have the best player possible at each position. NEXT YEAR, I think Rogers will be better than Rauch. Yes, over time, Rauch will probably be much more effective. I don't care about age or potential or if the player gets their feelings hurt, I just want the best damned pitchers possible in our starting rotation.

Sorry, but if you let Rauch rot in AAA for a year, do you think he would step in for 2004 and pitch as well as he would with a full season of experience under his belt...

This is retarding the future for a 38 or 39 year old guy who is likely to be marginally (at best) better than that prospect needed for the future!

Sorry, I guess I don't get it...

:?:

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I don't think Rogers would agree to be 'insurance' and play the season at AAA 'just in case'. He'll want to start.

I like this trade. What those of you have to understand is that we should have the best player possible at each position. NEXT YEAR, I think Rogers will be better than Rauch. Yes, over time, Rauch will probably be much more effective. I don't care about age or potential or if the player gets their feelings hurt, I just want the best damned pitchers possible in our starting rotation.

Sorry, but if you let Rauch rot in AAA for a year, do you think he would step in for 2004 and pitch as well as he would with a full season of experience under his belt...

This is retarding the future for a 38 or 39 year old guy who is likely to be marginally (at best) better than that prospect needed for the future!

Sorry, I guess I don't get it... I guess Rogers is just that last piece to the W.S. puzzle....

BLAH!

:?:

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
As for his stats, i know full well what they are thats why i brought em up, maybe you should do your homework.

Maybe you should read the whole thread.... I'm the only one using them...

soxguy
02-05-2003, 05:50 PM
i dont see it that way, in fact we have always done the opposite in soxland. we promote these young pitchers, we hype em up, we get all over excited, and the best they ever turn out to be is james baldwin. servicible at best. I see rogers in a james baldwin mold, pitching is so watered down these days there is a huge group of older guys who are just above average comanding high salaries. would u take jb back as a 5th starter? I would.......but only as a 5th starter, remember the great scott ruffcorn? was he the stud that the sox minor leagues have produced barring buerle. thats a joke, I want to win now screw the "potential " in the minors

soxguy
02-05-2003, 05:53 PM
hey im not saying we want different things here. i know what we both want as well as all sox fans is to finally WIN a world series, not just a division, which is childs play as far as im concerned. I just don't feel comfortable relying on a jon rausch or a corwin yet. I just want the best talent out there now...i dont think thats too unreasonable.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by soxguy
I just don't feel comfortable relying on a jon rausch or a corwin yet. I just want the best talent out there now...i dont think thats too unreasonable.

I just don't think you know what you're talking about here. Rauch was MLB ready at the start of 2001 after being MLPOY in AA, but he was injured. Corwin Malone hasn't proven much on the AA level yet and has a pretty good control problem to boot.

I don't feel comfortable putting ROgers in there at any cost, let alone the opportunity cost of Rauch missing out on a full season of MLB experience.


I still have not heard an answer...

Who are you Rogers backers expecting to be in the rotation in 2004????

maurice
02-05-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I don't think Rogers would agree to be 'insurance' and play the season at AAA 'just in case'. He'll want to start.

And I want to be King of England...but like the Stones said, "You can't always get what you want."

I wouldn't send Rogers to AAA, but I might use him in long relief. By now, he must have noticed that mediocre pitchers in their late 30's are not a hot commodity. With spring training right around the corner, he might have to decide between being: (1) a starter for a crappy team, or (2) a long-reliever / insurance policy for a potential contender.

Pete_SSAC
02-05-2003, 06:27 PM
Rodgers #5, Rauch and Glover duke it out for ong reilef in ST.

- Pete

Lip Man 1
02-05-2003, 07:18 PM
Just a comment on the difference between the BRAINS in the Yankees and Sox organizations.

The Yankees signed El Duque Hernandez originally to a five year deal that averaged about 2 million a season.

at the same time the Sox signed Jamie Navarro to a four year, twenty million dollar deal.

Also as far as pitchers "rotting" in the minors, Gary Peters pitched in the minors for seven years...didn't seem to hurt him any. Only in the past ten years or so (probably because of expansion) has the practice of rushing kids to the majors been in force. I'd like the Sox to go back to the policy that proved them well in the 50's and 60's. Let the kids learn their craft and then give them a shot when it's time.

Lip

Saracen
02-05-2003, 07:41 PM
I don't want to be negative, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit to see one of Garland, Wright or Rauch falter this year. I hope I'm wrong, but how can we be sure about all three of these guys putting together good years?

Put Rauch in long relief - that way he gets his experience and if Rogers sucks (and I really don't think he would) let Rauch start.

Rogers has won 2 of the last 3 gold gloves, he's an innings hog, and he's a lefty!

I can't see any disadvantage to adding a free agent left-handed pitcher cheap. This would add key depth and key experience. I want to see the young guys get their experience too. This doesn't have to have to come at the expense of getting Rauch experience.

DrCrawdad
02-05-2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I'd love Rogers in a Sox uni...

Ok, someone get busy on Photoshop.

http://www.canoe.ca/MusicImagesR/rogers_kenny2_160.jpg

NewyorkSoxFan
02-05-2003, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just a comment on the difference between the BRAINS in the Yankees and Sox organizations.

The Yankees signed El Duque Hernandez originally to a five year deal that averaged about 2 million a season.

at the same time the Sox signed Jamie Navarro to a four year, twenty million dollar deal.

Also as far as pitchers "rotting" in the minors, Gary Peters pitched in the minors for seven years...didn't seem to hurt him any. Only in the past ten years or so (probably because of expansion) has the practice of rushing kids to the majors been in force. I'd like the Sox to go back to the policy that proved them well in the 50's and 60's. Let the kids learn their craft and then give them a shot when it's time.

Lip



Great point Lip, I was tryinag to explain that to randar earlier. Everyone feels it has to get their kids up by the time they are 23,24 yrs old. Most don't even know how to pitch, they all just throw. Thats why you have guys giving up 6,and 7 runs in the first inning because they don't know how to pitch themselves out of trouble.

Rauch will have plenty of time to show his stuff, but I wouldn't mind one bit either having him in the bullpen, or in AAA.


NYSF

pissonthecubs
02-05-2003, 10:03 PM
i don't know how many of you listen to The Score Sportsradio 670am (in the chicago area), but this morning they brought this issue up and said that with Kenny Rogers in the rotation this year, not only would it be a great pickup, but it would give the sox starting five pitchers the most wins in all of baseball (wins from last year:Buehrle, 19; Colon, 20; Rogers, 13; Garland, 12; Glover, 8.) i would be all for this pick up and would give the sox one of if not the most talented staffs in either league.

____________
"It takes a hundred nuts to build a motorcycle, and just one in a car to wreck it."

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 10:06 PM
Personally, i believe it would be best for Rauch to pitch out of the bullpen this season. If he proves himself out there, trade Rogers around the deadline, and get a prospect. Like PHG mentioned, it cant hurt.

CWsox45
02-05-2003, 10:14 PM
i don't know how many of you listen to The Score Sportsradio 670am (in the chicago area), but this morning they brought this issue up and said that with Kenny Rogers in the rotation this year, not only would it be a great pickup, but it would give the sox starting five pitchers the most wins in all of baseball (wins from last year:Buehrle, 19; Colon, 20; Rogers, 13; Garland, 12; Glover, 8.) i would be all for this pick up and would give the sox one of if not the most talented staffs in either league.

You're right it would, actually we'd even have more than what you counted. Wright will be in the rotation this year and last year he won 14 games.

So Colon won 20; Buehrle 19; Wright 14; Rogers 13; and Garland 12.

That's impressive.

CWSOX45

MisterB
02-05-2003, 10:39 PM
Also as far as pitchers "rotting" in the minors, Gary Peters pitched in the minors for seven years...didn't seem to hurt him any. Only in the past ten years or so (probably because of expansion) has the practice of rushing kids to the majors been in force. I'd like the Sox to go back to the policy that proved them well in the 50's and 60's. Let the kids learn their craft and then give them a shot when it's time.

Do the rundown if Peters were coming up today:

He spent 3+ years in the minors before his first call-up - today if he wasn't on the 40-man roster after 2+, he'd be gone to the Rule 5 draft.

He was called up for brief appearances 4 years running - today he'd have been claimed off waivers the 4th year.

He'd be a free agent at 30, and undoubtedly would have been asking for a mint considering his past performance. At that point the Sox either lose him or sign him to a big-money multiyear contract and watch his performance decline slowly for the next 5 years.

Due to the way the minors and free agency are set up nowadays, the M.O. for good prospects is to get them to the majors as soon as is feasible and get the most out of them before you can lose them to the highest bidder. Welcome to baseball in the 21st century. :(:

Tragg
02-05-2003, 11:09 PM
At his best, Rogers was maybe an above average pitcher - but his best didn't last long. He's just okay. Why do we want an okay pitcher taking p.t. from our young pitchers? Well, I can think of a rationale for it. But realize that what you get with rogers is an okay, medicore pitcher.