PDA

View Full Version : Trade Rumor.......


THE_HOOTER
02-05-2003, 02:09 PM
According to Mel Antoneen from USA Today, the White Sox and Phillies are now talking and the trade would be Rauch and Jose Valentin for Jimmy Rollins.

I heard this on Sporting News Radio this afternoon.

I have no idea if there is any truth to the rumor, but I did hear it on the radio.

hold2dibber
02-05-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
According to Mel Antoneen from USA Today, the White Sox and Phillies are now talking and the trade would be Rauch and Jose Valentin for Jimmy Rollins.

I heard this on Sporting News Radio this afternoon.

I have no idea if there is any truth to the rumor, but I did hear it on the radio.

Ugghh. Too much good news lately - this trade would sure bring me back down to earth. I wouldn't even trade Rauch for Rollins straight up, and Valentin is a key component to this team. Rauch has much more long term potential/value than Rollins. Rollins was horrible last year. That would be a seriously bad trade.

A.T. Money
02-05-2003, 02:14 PM
The Phillies are a lot like the Sox. They are trying to win. I don't know if I'd be willing to give up Valentin for Rollins. Rollins is an all-star, however.

What do some of you other think?

voodoochile
02-05-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
The Phillies are a lot like the Sox. They are trying to win. I don't know if I'd be willing to give up Valentin for Rollins. Rollins is an all-star, however.

What do some of you other think?

Looks like a young Royce Clayton to me. I don't know much about him except for his stats (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?statsId=6419&context=batting), but they are NOT spectacular...

Randar68
02-05-2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
The Phillies are a lot like the Sox. They are trying to win. I don't know if I'd be willing to give up Valentin for Rollins. Rollins is an all-star, however.

What do some of you other think?

Very good defensive SS with range, but he's not a top of the order hitter that we need, despite his speed. Rauch is an awefully high price to pay for anyone, even as cheap as Rollins is in the short term, financially.

CHISOXFAN13
02-05-2003, 02:18 PM
Rollins is obviously a huge upgrade at short, but I'm not a huge an of this propsed deal. Hopefully it doesn't happen.

TheBigHurt
02-05-2003, 02:20 PM
i think i like the trade rollins has skills and is vastly improving

Unregistered
02-05-2003, 02:21 PM
I don't see us trading a solid-hitting starting position player and our possible #5 starter for a star pupil in the Royce Clayton school of hitting... this trade is a load of crap. as in, NOT happening.

A.T. Money
02-05-2003, 02:25 PM
Valentin's D is a liability, but let's be realistic here. The good outweighed the bad. His stick is great, and he's the best clutch hitter on the team. He's got an above average throwing arm as well. He just needs to work on staying low to the ground so the ball doesn't play him.

Unregistered
02-05-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by TheBigHurt
i think i like the trade rollins has skills and is vastly improving Actually Rollins hit 30 points lower than last year and stole 20 less bases while his .OPS dropped from .742 to .686... hardly a vast improvement...

No thanks, Philly. Tell Thome we say ''Hi''.

Tree
02-05-2003, 02:27 PM
I think this is a horrible trade unless they throw in say Milwood

ScottySoxFan
02-05-2003, 02:27 PM
IF this is true... there would have to be another trade in the works to bring another top of the rotation guy.

After all the hard work this off-season, I just don't see throwing away Valentin and Rauch for a guy that is slightly better than Royce Clayton.

voodoochile
02-05-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by ScottySoxFan
IF this is true... there would have to be another trade in the works to bring another top of the rotation guy.

After all the hard work this off-season, I just don't see throwing away Valentin and Rauch for a guy that is slightly better than Royce Clayton.

I think they would then sign Rogers for the 5th slot as has been rumored. They would easily be able to spend the money after trading Jose and his $5.5M salary.

THE_HOOTER
02-05-2003, 02:34 PM
If you look at the stats, this would be a good move only if they signed a pitcher because it looks like the move would save a lot of salary.

TheBigHurt
02-05-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
Actually Rollins hit 30 points lower than last year and stole 20 less bases while his .OPS dropped from .742 to .686... hardly a vast improvement...

No thanks, Philly. Tell Thome we say ''Hi''.

stat you!!!

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered
I don't see us trading a solid-hitting starting position player and our possible #5 starter for a star pupil in the Royce Clayton school of hitting... this trade is a load of crap. as in, NOT happening.

as much as some love valentin, i think this trade would largely be a means of dumping his salary. five million is a lot of money for jose and we certainly can't move that salary unless we pay a large portion of it or entice someone to take it for different reasons such as including a player such as rauch in the picture.

the thought would be that we would have solidified ourselves more up the middle and free up cash for a number 3 starter such as rogers or finley.

personally i agree that its a terrible idea because i'm not sure that whoever would take rauch's place would be that much of an upgrade this season, and we'd be killed on the deal in the longrun unless rollins bounced back in a major way. valentin is a free agent after this season regardless and i don't think the difference between rollins and valentin wins us a world series this season while the difference between having rauch and trading him could mean the difference between a world series and not having a world series in the long run.

hold2dibber
02-05-2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I think they would then sign Rogers for the 5th slot as has been rumored. They would easily be able to spend the money after trading Jose and his $5.5M salary.

They would essentially be trading Rauch and Valentin for Rogers and Rollins (whole lot of R's!). I don't think that these moves would make the Sox much (if any) better in '03, and, worse yet, I think they'd live to regret it down the line, because I think Rauch is going to be a good pitcher for many years, whereas Rogers, at best, is going to be a decent pitcher for another year or two.

Unregistered
02-05-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by TheBigHurt
stat you!!! Heh heh... Touche

Randar68
02-05-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I think they would then sign Rogers for the 5th slot as has been rumored. They would easily be able to spend the money after trading Jose and his $5.5M salary.


This would be one of the most shortsighted moves in recent Sox history. For what the Sox would be giving up, they had better get a lead-off type hitter with .380 OBP and speed with some damn fine fielding. Rollins is not that guy. This after all the talk of moving Jimenez to SS after Valentin's contract is up after this year. What do they do next year when Colon and Rogers are likely gone? Now you only have 3 starters w/ any experience instead of 4....

terrible if true.

ChiSoxKid
02-05-2003, 02:38 PM
This trade on its own is a joke. Even if Rogers is picked up for the No. 5 starter's role. Maybe if there was something more involved...

Randar68
02-05-2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
the thought would be that we would have solidified ourselves more up the middle and free up cash for a number 3 starter such as rogers or finley.

The problem with this logic is that NEITHER OF THEM IS A #3!!!

Tree
02-05-2003, 02:42 PM
If this move goes down.... Then I will stop thinking that Williams is improving as a GM

CHISOXFAN13
02-05-2003, 02:44 PM
I can't find anything in the USA Today or on the Phiilies website forum about Rollins being on the market. Maybe we should just relax before Randar has a heart attack.

voodoochile
02-05-2003, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
This would be one of the most shortsighted moves in recent Sox history. For what the Sox would be giving up, they had better get a lead-off type hitter with .380 OBP and speed with some damn fine fielding. Rollins is not that guy. This after all the talk of moving Jimenez to SS after Valentin's contract is up after this year. What do they do next year when Colon and Rogers are likely gone? Now you only have 3 starters w/ any experience instead of 4....

terrible if true.

I agree. I don't want to see this trade either. Rollins is not an upgrade on Jose offensively and we tried getting a defensive minded SS before and it didn't work out then either. Of course that time they only traded Mayette who was never a Rauch...

I don't doubt that part of KW's reasoning is that they would get to keep Rollins for the next 3 years at least and they could then leave Jimenez at 2B. Of course it is a move with half an eye on the future and not what they should be playing for with Colon only definitely here for a year. Of course the other side of it is they lose Rauch and that is the exact opposite of playing for the future.

It seems confusing to me...

Randar68
02-05-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
It seems confusing to me...

Doesn't seem to be a very realistic trade. Perhaps (as is many times the case), some deskjockey is just speculating with absolutely nothing to back it up...

Sometimes clubs like to 'leak' things like this to let other teams know a player is available...

moochpuppy
02-05-2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
I can't find anything in the USA Today or on the Phiilies website forum about Rollins being on the market. Maybe we should just relax before Randar has a heart attack.

Or pummels another Tigers fan. :D:

Randar68
02-05-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by moochpuppy
Or pummels another Tigers fan. :D:


Ahhhh, the good ole days Mooch... Long time, you still prefer to troll bash on the ESPN site?

BTW, I think 90% of the people here are somewhat new and have no idea to which you refer....

moochpuppy
02-05-2003, 02:52 PM
I like this trade only if we then ship Rollins, Rowand and Josh Stewart to the Royals for Beltran and Febles.

moochpuppy
02-05-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Ahhhh, the good ole days Mooch... Long time, you still prefer to troll bash on the ESPN site?

LOL! Not as much as I used to. Most of the time it's to aggravate the Cubs board or talk Bears.


Originally posted by Randar68
BTW, I think 90% of the people here are somewhat new and have no idea to which you refer....

There have been a lot of newbies lately. You should share that story with the youngin's.

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 02:56 PM
as others have said but i failed to mention in detail before, perhaps the biggest problem with this deal is that rollins is not very good. last season rollins was basically royce clayton with the ability to steal bases. assuming jiminez's defense isn't too bad at ss, and we really want to get rid of jose this season, we should trade jose and harris for a second baseman and slide jiminez over to short. if jiminez can hit anything like he did for us last season as a ss, he'd be one of the best hitting shortstops in the game hands down.

Tree
02-05-2003, 03:02 PM
Jiminez was supposed to be better than Jeter or Soriano before he got hurt. My cousin is a Yankme fan and was raving about Jiminez a couple of years back. So hopefully he is good with the glove at SS

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Tree
Jiminez was supposed to be better than Jeter or Soriano before he got hurt. My cousin is a Yankme fan and was raving about Jiminez a couple of years back. So hopefully he is good with the glove at SS

this is true. i'm hoping we get a minor miracle here and somehow end up with the guy that was a top prospect for the yanks reaching his potential with us. the fact that he faced such a serious setback with the car accident his suffered in the dominican makes that scenerio more likely than it otherwise would be.

fuzzy_patters
02-05-2003, 03:20 PM
Gee guys, this is a terrible trade. Let's give up an unproven pitcher who has had arm surgery and an aging shortstop for a 23 year old two time All-Star who is most similar to Christian Guzman at his age. That would be terrible.

joecrede
02-05-2003, 03:22 PM
Putting aside the animosty created by jerking Valentin around and making him less valuable in next year's free-agent market for a minute, I wonder why, if they are so concerned with his defense at short, they don't move Valentin to second and let Jimenez play short this year.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Gee guys, this is a terrible trade. Let's give up an unproven pitcher who has had arm surgery and an aging shortstop for a 23 year old two time All-Star who is most similar to Christian Guzman at his age. That would be terribel.

Sorry, All-star or not, he regressed last season. His numbers don't warrant the respect you are giving him. He'd be an 8 or 9 hitter on this team.

hold2dibber
02-05-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Gee guys, this is a terrible trade. Let's give up an unproven pitcher who has had arm surgery and an aging shortstop for a 23 year old two time All-Star who is most similar to Christian Guzman at his age. That would be terrible.

Come on - Rollins isn't all that proven either. He sucked last year; he's still young and his '01 season was pretty good, but I personally think Jimenez will be a better all around SS than Rollins after '03. And Rauch, despite the fact that he had surgery once, has top of the rotation potential. I'd deal Valentin and younger, less vaunted pitching prospects for Rollins (maybe Valentin, Malone and Stewart or Sanders), but not Rauch.

fuzzy_patters
02-05-2003, 03:49 PM
Rollins has led the national league in triples each of the last two seasons, and he led the league in steals in 2001 as a rookie. He only hit .223 on turf last year, but he hit .273 at grass. Also, he hit .177 during the day and .276 at night. In Philly he played mostly day/turf games, but in Chicago he would play mostly night/grass games. There is reason to believe his numbers would improve from last year.

In only 1 half season since coming to the big leagues has he failed to hit over .260. That was the second half of last season when he only hit .225. However, that included a .305 month of August with an OBP of .376. His worst months were July and September last year when he hit .160 and .194 respectively. It could be that the league had learned to pitch to him, but then how do you explain his August? It's more likely he was a young player going through a slump (see May '00,'01/Paul Konerko).

Defensively Rollins has been consistent posting a .979 and a .980 FP in his two season. He has also never failed to turn fewer than 90 double plays in a season.

I really don't see how some of you can compare this guy to Clayton. There is really no comparison.

MaggPipes
02-05-2003, 03:51 PM
This would be a terrible deal, along the lines of the Todd Ritchie trade....I can see it now....."Rauch goes 23-6 and has a 2.59 ERA for the Phillies..........White Sox give up on yet another pitching prospect too soon"

Randar68
02-05-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Rollins has led the national league in triples each of the last two seasons, and he led the league in steals in 2001 as a rookie. He only hit .223 on turf last year, but he hit .273 at grass. Also, he hit .177 during the day and .276 at night. In Philly he played mostly day/turf games, but in Chicago he would play mostly night/grass games. There is reason to believe his numbers would improve from last year.

In only 1 half season since coming to the big leagues has he failed to hit over .260. That was the second half of last season when he only hit .225. However, that included a .305 month of August with an OBP of .376. His worst months were July and September last year when he hit .160 and .194 respectively. It could be that the league had learned to pitch to him, but then how do you explain his August? It's more likely he was a young player going through a slump (see May '00,'01/Paul Konerko).

Defensively Rollins has been consistent posting a .979 and a .980 FP in his two season. He has also never failed to turn fewer than 90 double plays in a season.

I really don't see how some of you can compare this guy to Clayton. There is really no comparison.


I have not compared him to Clayton, but unless he is going to post a high OBP consistently to be a leadoff hitter, then I think the Sox would be getting robbed in that deal.

MaggPipes
02-05-2003, 03:57 PM
Man my best friend is a Phillies fan, and I have bragged on Rauch to him for years, whenever he tried to brag up the Phils, and then last year i gave him all kinds of crap for Jimmy Rollins who he bragged on in 2001......this would be REALLY bad.....please don't do it.....

hold2dibber
02-05-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Rollins has led the national league in triples each of the last two seasons, and he led the league in steals in 2001 as a rookie. He only hit .223 on turf last year, but he hit .273 at grass. Also, he hit .177 during the day and .276 at night. In Philly he played mostly day/turf games, but in Chicago he would play mostly night/grass games. There is reason to believe his numbers would improve from last year.

In only 1 half season since coming to the big leagues has he failed to hit over .260. That was the second half of last season when he only hit .225. However, that included a .305 month of August with an OBP of .376. His worst months were July and September last year when he hit .160 and .194 respectively. It could be that the league had learned to pitch to him, but then how do you explain his August? It's more likely he was a young player going through a slump (see May '00,'01/Paul Konerko).

Defensively Rollins has been consistent posting a .979 and a .980 FP in his two season. He has also never failed to turn fewer than 90 double plays in a season.


Rollins may turn out to be a decent SS, but he hasn't shown enough with the stick to be considered a top notch player. He just doesn't get on base enough. It is true that Rollins has good tools, he's very young, and he has shown flashes. But I just think Rauch has much greater potential to be a great player than Rollins does (notwithstanding his 2 all-star appearances, Rollins is clearly not a great player at this point in his career). That's why I wouldn't do it.

moochpuppy
02-05-2003, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by MaggPipes
...."Rauch goes 23-6 and has a 2.59 ERA for the Phillies..........

Rauch will be lucky to get that many starts this season, let alone decisions. I know he's a highly touted prospect but come on. This should have been a "tealessense" statement.

NewyorkSoxFan
02-05-2003, 04:04 PM
If this deal would include Jose and Rauch, I agree this would be a terrible deal. But remember we thought we would have to give him up in the Colon deal and we didn't. I can't imagine we would give him up for this kid. Even though they both have tremendous upsides.

So my question is what if it is Jose, and a lesser pitching prospect, which would probably mean there is another trade or FA signing in the works? Would everyone do that deal?


NYSF

duke of dorwood
02-05-2003, 04:07 PM
This trade is a mock. Who started this rumor, the Twins?

Randar68
02-05-2003, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by NewyorkSoxFan
So my question is what if it is Jose, and a lesser pitching prospect, which would probably mean there is another trade or FA signing in the works? Would everyone do that deal?


NYSF

If it were Sanders or Malone (even though I'm high on him, he regressed a bit last year), I would do it, but Rauch better be getting you a top player or a top 2 pitcher that can play today if he is in any deal...

NewyorkSoxFan
02-05-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
If it were Sanders or Malone (even though I'm high on him, he regressed a bit last year), I would do it, but Rauch better be getting you a top player or a top 2 pitcher that can play today if he is in any deal...

Randar- Are you being paid by Rauch's people? How in the world would you get a #2 for Rauch when he hasn't pitched a full season? If he was a sure #2 today we wouldn't have traded for Colon. Randar- JUST SAY NO.


NYSF

kermittheefrog
02-05-2003, 04:29 PM
Honestly guys I'd be in favor of this deal. Here's why:

Shoulder problems are the worst possible injury issues a pitcher can have. And Rauch wasn't handled well after the injury last year. While I am hopeful he'll be good and think he deserves first shot at the #5 spot, I wouldn't mind sending Rauch away.

Jose Valentin is creeping into his 30's and is already having injury issue hamper his play. Most notably his recurring groin problems. He is a better hitter than Rollins and his defense is underrated but...

Rollins is the kind of guy who can break out and be really good. I know he regressed a bit last year but this guy is no Royce Clayton. His first two seasons and minor league record are much better than Clayton at the same age. There are some pretty good players on Jimmy Rollins' list of comparable players (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rolliji01.shtml). Including last year's AL MVP Miguel Tejada. Rollins numbers aren't far off Tejada's at the same age. The difference is Rollins has a little more speed and Tejada had more power. I think getting Rollins could really be a move for both now and the future. I'd like this move.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by NewyorkSoxFan
Randar- Are you being paid by Rauch's people? How in the world would you get a #2 for Rauch when he hasn't pitched a full season? If he was a sure #2 today we wouldn't have traded for Colon. Randar- JUST SAY NO.


NYSF

No, but unlike most of the hacks around here, I have seen him pitch healthy in AA and have seen him in person several times. When a team is looking to trade top 2 pitchers, they are usually looking for prospects with that potential down the road. Why would anyone trade Curt Schilling for Randy Johnson if they were going to rebuild or cut payroll. I don't see where you are going with that arguement. It doesn't hold water...

Rogers is done. Please take the 10 seconds and check out his career numbers. He's 38 freaking years old. You would swap he and Rauch for the next 5 years??

If so, that is simply assinine. Rollins hasn't done anything overly impressive in his 2 years thus far...

Player like him are a lot easier to come by than real #1 or #2 pitchers. I have a lot more confidence in Rauch becoming that than I do in any other prospect we've had the past 10 years...

Randar68
02-05-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog

Rollins is the kind of guy who can break out and be really good. I know he regressed a bit last year but this guy is no Royce Clayton. His first two seasons and minor league record are much better than Clayton at the same age. There are some pretty good players on Jimmy Rollins' list of comparable players (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/rolliji01.shtml). Including last year's AL MVP Miguel Tejada. Rollins numbers aren't far off Tejada's at the same age. The difference is Rollins has a little more speed and Tejada had more power. I think getting Rollins could really be a move for both now and the future. I'd like this move.

I won't bother with your Rauch arguement, but why would you do this deal if you thinkj Jimenez is the answer as of a month or two ago????

You're dealing away pitching for something you supposedly already have....

Randar68
02-05-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Honestly guys I'd be in favor of this deal. Here's why:


BTW, Kermit, I'd be interested to hear what you think the Sox would do for 2004 then? Going in with a pitching staff of Mark, Garland and Wright with nobody else with any experience doens't sound like a team with any prayer of making the playoffs... You are creating more questions than you have answers.

gogosoxgogo
02-05-2003, 04:37 PM
Eww. This better be a joke. I wouldn't trade either of these two straight up for Rollins. Bad, bad trade. Better not happen.

NewyorkSoxFan
02-05-2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
No, but unlike most of the hacks around here, I have seen him pitch healthy in AA and have seen him in person several times. When a team is looking to trade top 2 pitchers, they are usually looking for prospects with that potential down the road. Why would anyone trade Curt Schilling for Randy Johnson if they were going to rebuild or cut payroll. I don't see where you are going with that arguement. It doesn't hold water...

Rogers is done. Please take the 10 seconds and check out his career numbers. He's 38 freaking years old. You would swap he and Rauch for the next 5 years??

If so, that is simply assinine. Rollins hasn't done anything overly impressive in his 2 years thus far...

Player like him are a lot easier to come by than real #1 or #2 pitchers. I have a lot more confidence in Rauch becoming that than I do in any other prospect we've had the past 10 years...



Randar I hate to tell you this but pitching in AA and in the show is two very diffferent things. Your argument that he should be traded for a #2 makes no sense. Sometimes teams trade prospects for prospects based on needs. So there could be more than one reason why you would trade a pitcher like him.

This has nothing to do with Rogers. What I am saying is I expect Rauch to take some lumps, I don't think (unlike you) that this guy is the second coming. He has got to show me more than two starts against a team who has clinched the division in Sept, and is resting guys and focusing on post season.

We as fans get to excited about what guys do in Sept. Let me see you do it in June when everything is on the line. If he does that then I will concede that he is worth a #2.

NYSF

SoxxoS
02-05-2003, 04:43 PM
I also don't agree with the "38 years old" argument. I used to think age was a huge deal, but ever since the D'Backs won the World Series 3 years prior to needing gereatric care, that argument doesn't hold much water. Not to mention Jamie Moyer, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, etc.

kermittheefrog
02-05-2003, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
BTW, Kermit, I'd be interested to hear what you think the Sox would do for 2004 then? Going in with a pitching staff of Mark, Garland and Wright with nobody else with any experience doens't sound like a team with any prayer of making the playoffs... You are creating more questions than you have answers.

I think you can't rely on Rauch being there in 2004 one way or another. I don't think you're taking Rauch's health concerns seriously enough. I think if he's healthy he'll be good but it's a 10-15% chance at best he's healthy enough to be as good as he can be.

I think Rollins is a much hotter commodity than Rauch at this point. Because of his injury history there is no way Rauch is even one of the top 50 prospects in baseball at this point. I'd say the top handful of major league shortstops plus Jose Reyes are the only guys I'd for sure take over Jimmy Rollins at short right now. That includes Brandon Phillips in the guys that I say aren't definitely better than Rollins.

guillen4life13
02-05-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by NewyorkSoxFan
Randar I hate to tell you this but pitching in AA and in the show is two very diffferent things. Your argument that he should be traded for a #2 makes no sense. Sometimes teams trade prospects for prospects based on needs. So there could be more than one reason why you would trade a pitcher like him.

This has nothing to do with Rogers. What I am saying is I expect Rauch to take some lumps, I don't think (unlike you) that this guy is the second coming. He has got to show me more than two starts against a team who has clinched the division in Sept, and is resting guys and focusing on post season.

We as fans get to excited about what guys do in Sept. Let me see you do it in June when everything is on the line. If he does that then I will concede that he is worth a #2.

NYSF


I understand that you haven't been on WSI for extremely long, so I will just tell you this, in case you didn't know: Randar is the resident expert in regards to prospects. He knows a helluva lot about baseball, and he follows prospects through the system. I trust his judgement regarding these things much, much more than I would trust anyone else's. That isnt to say he's never wrong, but he's damn trustworthy.

And anyways, we saw Rauch after he was recalled last year and he was very good. I would probably say that he wasn't used well in the beginning of the year by our beloved tinkerer and his former sidekick Nardi.

CHISOXFAN13
02-05-2003, 04:49 PM
I'm a hack!!!!!

Randar68
02-05-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by NewyorkSoxFan
Randar I hate to tell you this but pitching in AA and in the show is two very diffferent things. Your argument that he should be traded for a #2 makes no sense. Sometimes teams trade prospects for prospects based on needs. So there could be more than one reason why you would trade a pitcher like him.

This has nothing to do with Rogers. What I am saying is I expect Rauch to take some lumps, I don't think (unlike you) that this guy is the second coming. He has got to show me more than two starts against a team who has clinched the division in Sept, and is resting guys and focusing on post season.

We as fans get to excited about what guys do in Sept. Let me see you do it in June when everything is on the line. If he does that then I will concede that he is worth a #2.

NYSF


*****! You don't know a damn thing about me. I don't think he is the second coming, but he has #1 or #2 potential. Thinking Rogers the a crucial piece in any WS puzzle is beyond assinine, and that is what you appear to be suggesting, since you are willing to sacrifice the future for one year.

kermittheefrog
02-05-2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
I also don't agree with the "38 years old" argument. I used to think age was a huge deal, but ever since the D'Backs won the World Series 3 years prior to needing gereatric care, that argument doesn't hold much water. Not to mention Jamie Moyer, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, etc.

Great examples, two hall of famers and one extremely rare player who has gotten steadily better in his thirties. Even Moyer struck out more guys and walked less than Rogers has of late. Anyone who signs Kenny Rogers will find he's done like dinner. Thats one thing Randar and I can agree on.

guillen4life13
02-05-2003, 04:51 PM
And regardless... our batting lineup is arguably one of the best, if not THE BEST lineup in the AL, or even the whole major leagues. We don't need any changes with our offensive attack. Our bench looks solid also. If anything, we need another catcher... who is good! But Olivo is already an upgrade to the 3rd best offense in the AL last year.

guillen4life13
02-05-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Great examples, two hall of famers and one extremely rare player who has gotten steadily better in his thirties. Even Moyer struck out more guys and walked less than Rogers has of late. Anyone who signs Kenny Rogers will find he's done like dinner. Thats one thing Randar and I can agree on.

When you think of Kenny Rogers... think of 2001 where we absolutely clobbered him. He isn't going to solve any problems.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
And anyways, we saw Rauch after he was recalled last year and he was very good. I would probably say that he wasn't used well in the beginning of the year by our beloved tinkerer and his former sidekick Nardi.


Thank you for the kind words. I would like to add that these days Vic gets to a lot more games and sees quite a few more guys than I do... however, I would hope I wouldn't need these types of posts to validate an opinion...

That being said, he was certainly not healthy at the start of last season as he was lacking control and velocity as side-effects of his surgery. He had his control and most his velocity back at the end of last season and you saw how much different he was on the mound.

Unless you have stood behind the plate with Jon pitching as opposed to your run-of-the-mill pitching prospect, you won't have any idea how deceptive and special he is...

maurice
02-05-2003, 05:00 PM
This one is tough. A lot of it depends on whether Jimenez can handle SS defensively. Rollins is a huge upgrade over Jose in just about every way (excepting power, facial hair, and possibly leadership). He's much better defensively, much faster, much younger, much cheaper, much more durable, etc.

I'd do the trade in a minute if Phily would agree to take something along the lines of Malone and Almonte instead of Rauch, though.

gogosoxgogo
02-05-2003, 05:04 PM
Bad trade. Don't do it. Please, don't do it.

SoxxoS
02-05-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by maurice
This one is tough. A lot of it depends on whether Jimenez can handle SS defensively. Rollins is a huge upgrade over Jose in just about every way (excepting power, facial hair, and possibly leadership). He's much better defensively, much faster, much younger, much cheaper, much more durable, etc.

I'd do the trade in a minute if Phily would agree to take something along the lines of Malone and Almonte instead of Rauch, though.

Jimenez would be playing 2B, not SS, if we acquired Rollins.

voodoochile
02-05-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Jimenez would be playing 2B, not SS, if we acquired Rollins.

Yes, but if Jimenez can handle SS than the Sox could put Harris or Hullet at 2B (provided they can actully hit MLB pitching that is) thus making it less necessary to trade our top pitching prospect for another SS.

gogosoxgogo
02-05-2003, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, but if Jimenez can handle SS than the Sox could put Harris or Hullet at 2B (provided they can actully hit MLB pitching that is) thus making it less necessary to trade our top pitching prospect for another SS.

who is Hullet?

Champ Summers
02-05-2003, 05:17 PM
prob'ly talking about Hummel...Tim, that is...

maurice
02-05-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
who is Hullet?

I think he means Hummell.

Pete_SSAC
02-05-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, but if Jimenez can handle SS than the Sox could put Harris or Hullet at 2B (provided they can actully hit MLB pitching that is) thus making it less necessary to trade our top pitching prospect for another SS.

Wasn't the Hullet a big hairstyle in the 80's?

- Pete

kermittheefrog
02-05-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
Bad trade. Don't do it. Please, don't do it.

Well that sure is a persuasive argument.

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 05:51 PM
Rollins is one of the best young SS in the game, i'd do that trade....

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I think you can't rely on Rauch being there in 2004 one way or another. I don't think you're taking Rauch's health concerns seriously enough. I think if he's healthy he'll be good but it's a 10-15% chance at best he's healthy enough to be as good as he can be.

I think Rollins is a much hotter commodity than Rauch at this point. Because of his injury history there is no way Rauch is even one of the top 50 prospects in baseball at this point. I'd say the top handful of major league shortstops plus Jose Reyes are the only guys I'd for sure take over Jimmy Rollins at short right now. That includes Brandon Phillips in the guys that I say aren't definitely better than Rollins.

i agree with some but not all of what you're saying here kermit. i do think that moving valentin is a plus nearly anywhere you look at it. leadership is important and he's valuable as far as that goes but he makes over 5 million dollars, is getting older, won't be resigned, isn't a particularly good fielder and isn't a spectacular hitter. if we could clear his contract off the books that would free up payroll this season and we'd have the option to a second player that will be here a long time up the middle along with jimenez.

i reconsidered my assessment of rollins after reading your post and i was probably too harsh initially. i had the impression based on his low obp that his walk total was in the mike caruso/chris singleton range and because of his lack of discipline he was fading fast. he has walked 50 times each of the past two seasons which is decent. that said, his overall numbers still don't look that outstanding to me.

rollins' numbers maybe be slightly better than claytons at the same age but not that much better. clayton played about 60 fewer career games than rollins as a 22 year old and clayton as a 23 year old was better than rollins as a 23 year old. even in the better of rollins two seasons, his ops was still pretty low (.743) as was his obp (.323), if we'd consider him a possible top of the order hitter.

i feel like rollins is still young and could bounce back and become a pretty good player although he'll never be a great hitter. i also could see him sliding. its hard to say.

i think where our views diverge the most is on rauch. i don't know where the 10-15% figure comes from. that seems like a rather grim assessment to me. shoulder surgery is serious and certainly lessens the chance that he'll be a dominating pitcher in the majors but certainly there have been numerous pitchers that have made full recoveries. i find it hard to believe than at least 85% of pitchers that have shoulder surgery in this day and age are never fully healthy again.

i certainly do agree though that there are a number of pitchers that haven't recovered so for those reasons i think its important to look at each case very closely. certainly two years after a pitcher's surgery there are factors which can increase or decrease their chances of returning to full health. i think that if we simply say "most pitchers don't recover from shoulder surgery" as the bp guys seem to be quite eager to do and downgrade rauch based only on that, we're being lazy.

we have a lot more applicable information available to us other than simply the fact that rauch had shoulder surgery. due to the fact that he pitched all season last year, we can look at his performance and adjust our opinion based on that. for instance the fact that rauch had his velocity within 1-2 miles of what it was before and improved drastically over the course of the season culminating in substantial success at the end of the season, is a reason for much greater optimism that one would otherwise have about a pitcher coming off of shoulder surgery.

i don't know if the guys at bp can't take this into account just because they can't follow each team closely enough to monitor guys scouting reports and progress throughout a season or if they just don't care but i feel like simply going back to the fact that rauch did have arm surgery two years ago seems like taking shortcuts to me. certainly that's relevant but so is everything else that has transpired since then. the fact that rauch has made progress is meaningfull.

if you look around guys like baldwin and howry still hadn't moved within 1-2 mph of their velocity in their second full season back as i recall. on the other hand someone like osuna was throwing within 1-2 miles of his previous velocity in the spring following his surgery. wunsch was already pretty successful last season. it would seem to me like the rate at which a pitcher improves after surgery is at least somewhat indicative of whether or not the pitcher will ever reach full health again.

one more thing to consider about rauch is that the injury doesn't alter his ceiling, only his likelyhood of being healthy enough to reach it. i would rather have a guy who has a 20% chance of being a perennial cy young candidate than a guy with a 35% chance of being simply above average. i feel like where we are (and all of baseball for that matter) as far as lacking star quality young pitching, it very well might be better to take a risk on ending up with a truly great pitcher even if it means there's a good chance we'll walk away with nothing than take something that's closer to a sure thing but not all that spectacular.

sorry for the excessively long post but i find the issues in this thread pretty interesting.

voodoochile
02-05-2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo


who is Hullet?


Originally posted by Champ Summers
prob'ly talking about Hummel...Tim, that is...


Originally posted by maurice


I think he means Hummell.


Brain fart. Yeah that's the guy... Got thrown off by the poster who goes as "hullet_fan".

Oh well...

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 09:19 PM
If KW can pull off signing Rogers and then dealing Rauch and Jose for Rollins, i think we become SERIOUS and IMMEDIATE world series contenders.

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
If KW can pull off signing Rogers and then dealing Rauch and Jose for Rollins, i think we become SERIOUS and IMMEDIATE world series contenders.

i don't know. based on last year's performance rollins certainly isn't lightyears better (or maybe even at all better) than jose at this point. if rogers repeated last season, that would increase the extent to which we are contenders but no one on this board has at any time made a convincing argument (or any real argument for that matter) as to why the going on 39 kenny rogers is a lock to repeat last season but not his '01 season in which his era was 6.19. suggesting he'll produce an era near 4.5 isn't unreasonable but that's garland era last season, why does that make us serious and immediate world series contenders?

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i don't know. based on last year's performance rollins certainly isn't lightyears better (or maybe even at all better) than jose at this point. if rogers repeated last season, that would increase the extent to which we are contenders but no one on this board has at any time made a convincing argument (or any real argument for that matter) as to why the going on 39 kenny rogers is a lock to repeat last season but not his '01 season in which his era was 6.19. suggesting he'll produce an era near 4.5 isn't unreasonable but that's garland era last season, why does that make us serious and immediate world series contenders?

Can you watch a baseball game outside of Chicago please? Thanks. Rollins is an absolute STUD.

wassagstdu
02-05-2003, 09:37 PM
I like Rollins a lot. He plays hard and is quick, fast, good arm, scrappy, great attitude. He is no Royce Clayton. I also like Valentin though and I think he is more important to the team than even his clutch stats show. Rollins could play short for the sox for 10 years. I think I would do the deal.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i think where our views diverge the most is on rauch. i don't know where the 10-15% figure comes from. that seems like a rather grim assessment to me. shoulder surgery is serious and certainly lessens the chance that he'll be a dominating pitcher in the majors but certainly there have been numerous pitchers that have made full recoveries. i find it hard to believe than at least 85% of pitchers that have shoulder surgery in this day and age are never fully healthy again.

You're right jeremy. This is because Kermit pulled these numbers out of his arse. Not to mention the fact he still couldn't accurately tell you what he had done surgically.

Never let facts get ion the way of a rediculously speculative and irresponsible arguement, huh?

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
You're right jeremy. This is because Kermit pulled these numbers out of his arse. Not to mention the fact he still couldn't accurately tell you what he had done surgically.

Never let facts get ion the way of a rediculously speculative and irresponsible arguement, huh?

I think randar and jeremy are the same person because theyre equally clueless about baseball...... :D:

Randar68
02-05-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Can you watch a baseball game outside of Chicago please? Thanks. Rollins is an absolute STUD.

So far a guy who hit .245 with an OBP barely breaking .300 is a stud???

He may some day become one, which is in question, but you're a bit premature...

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
So far a guy who hit .245 with an OBP barely breaking .300 is a stud???

He may some day become one, which is in question, but you're a bit premature...

Crap, thats what my girlfriend said last night, too. :gulp:

soxguy
02-05-2003, 09:57 PM
on this one we are on the same page. As I argued earlier i'm not a huge fan of rauch....YET, but you never trade away a pitcher with his potential for a marginal ss. Maybe rollins will one day be a great player,but so may rausch,i say stick wit the big guy. If you want a defensive ss who can't hit all that well but isnt a clubhouse cancer like clayton,not to mention just an all around jag,bring up dallero,or just use tony g. YOU DON"T GIVE UP A TOP PROSPECT PITCHER for that

soxguy
02-05-2003, 10:00 PM
the only way this trade goes down, in kw's world, is if he already know he's signing kenny rogers,thus givin him a shortterm 5th starter,but I don't like the longterm repercusions of a deal like that. If kenny folds here, we'll all be happier come september......

Joel Perez
02-05-2003, 10:13 PM
This better NOT happen.
What on earth, after you've just pulled off a major coup in Bartolo Colon, does KW even consider trading a potential HORSE in Johnny Rauch for essentially, another Ray Durham.

HELL NO!

Rollins does the same things Ray Ray used to do before 1) MONEY TALKED and he stopped running, and 2) same size, stature, and 3) swings from his heels, essentially making him believe that he's a 5'8" power hitter!

WHY?

Jose does an admirable, so-so job at SS...you don't mess with the chemistry factor that he, Paulie and Mags have established here...something The Big Hurt is reluctant to do. Also, Rauch is only 23...yes, he has one major surgery, I will say that...but come on...trading a potential HORSE, a potential #1 for years for WHO????????

Jimmy Rollins?

Better throw in Pat Burrell, and maybe you have a deal!

cornball
02-05-2003, 10:59 PM
Rollins would be a great pickup.....but I dont think KW would trade Rauch at this time. If they could get rid of Valentin, I think they would. The best part of Jose is his attitude, but he makes 5MM per and will be gone at the end of the year anyway.

If Rollins is available, maybe some other deal could be had.

A top of the order lefthanded hitting CF is what I believe he wants most, at least in the short term til LTP comes up.

HITMEN OF 77
02-06-2003, 02:18 AM
I don't want us to get rid of Jose, he is a key element to the team and has been ever since he arrived. We don't need another Royce Clayton, the Phillies can have him!

jeremyb1
02-06-2003, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Can you watch a baseball game outside of Chicago please? Thanks. Rollins is an absolute STUD.

how is that even an argument? you're basically trying to attack me and simply say "i'm right and you're wrong". we know you like rollins. the fact that you've seen him on tv doesn't mean you're right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. somehow i doubt you're the only one who's seen him play before. its nice that your opinion is that he's a stud but forgive me if i don't take one poster's opinion on a message board as the absolute truth. rollins didn't play well last year no matter what you saw on tv. look at his numbers, there's not too much that can't be shown there.

baggio202
02-06-2003, 03:48 AM
i look at it from philly's standpoint and there is no way they make this trade...roliins is only 24 years old...he has laready had 2 seasons where he had hit in double figures in doubles ,triples and homers...he hit 33 doubles last year and stole 31 bases...true his numbers slipped from his rookie year..but ther eis a reason the term "sophomore jinx" came about...defensively this kid is solid..he royce clayton with a little mor erange and a much better arm...

to say this guy hits like clayton is rediculous...clayton averages about 20 doubles a season..has never come come close to hitting double digits in triples..clayton has been in the league 12 years , rollins 2..and they both have 2 seasons each of double digit homers...clayton and rollins both have the same number of 30 plus stolen base seasons...2

in his first two seasons rollins has tied or eclipsed all of claytons career highs...rollins is 10 times the ballplayer clayton is...

plus philly has rollins under lock and key for 4 more seasons..he is in the same boat as buehrle...

why are they gonna make this move??...for a pitcher in rauch that still hasnt proved he is back from arm surgery and can pitch in the majors and for a SS that they would have to pay 4 million dollars more for thats only gaurenteed to be with them through this season???...and they already have an all star SS???....philly would be retarded to make this trade....

gogosoxgogo
02-06-2003, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
i look at it from philly's standpoint and there is no way they make this trade...roliins is only 24 years old...he has laready had 2 seasons where he had hit in double figures in doubles ,triples and homers...he hit 33 doubles last year and stole 31 bases...true his numbers slipped from his rookie year..but ther eis a reason the term "sophomore jinx" came about...defensively this kid is solid..he royce clayton with a little mor erange and a much better arm...

to say this guy hits like clayton is rediculous...clayton averages about 20 doubles a season..has never come come close to hitting double digits in triples..clayton has been in the league 12 years , rollins 2..and they both have 2 seasons each of double digit homers...clayton and rollins both have the same number of 30 plus stolen base seasons...2

in his first two seasons rollins has tied or eclipsed all of claytons career highs...rollins is 10 times the ballplayer clayton is...

plus philly has rollins under lock and key for 4 more seasons..he is in the same boat as buehrle...

why are they gonna make this move??...for a pitcher in rauch that still hasnt proved he is back from arm surgery and can pitch in the majors and for a SS that they would have to pay 4 million dollars more for thats only gaurenteed to be with them through this season???...and they already have an all star SS???....philly would be retarded to make this trade....

I agree with that logic. I was thinking of that last night, too. I don't think this trade would majorly benefit any of the teams involved. From a Sox fan, I wouldn't do it. From a Phillies' fan, I wouldn't do it.

soxtalker
02-06-2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
i look at it from philly's standpoint and there is no way they make this trade...roliins is only 24 years old...he has laready had 2 seasons where he had hit in double figures in doubles ,triples and homers...he hit 33 doubles last year and stole 31 bases...true his numbers slipped from his rookie year..but ther eis a reason the term "sophomore jinx" came about...defensively this kid is solid..he royce clayton with a little mor erange and a much better arm...

to say this guy hits like clayton is rediculous...clayton averages about 20 doubles a season..has never come come close to hitting double digits in triples..clayton has been in the league 12 years , rollins 2..and they both have 2 seasons each of double digit homers...clayton and rollins both have the same number of 30 plus stolen base seasons...2

in his first two seasons rollins has tied or eclipsed all of claytons career highs...rollins is 10 times the ballplayer clayton is...

plus philly has rollins under lock and key for 4 more seasons..he is in the same boat as buehrle...

why are they gonna make this move??...for a pitcher in rauch that still hasnt proved he is back from arm surgery and can pitch in the majors and for a SS that they would have to pay 4 million dollars more for thats only gaurenteed to be with them through this season???...and they already have an all star SS???....philly would be retarded to make this trade....

You bring up good points. We should try to see it from Philly's point of view. Let me dig a bit deeper:

Does Philly have someone waiting in the wings in their farm system for the SS position?

Rauch could be a very good pitcher, but he'll probably only compete for our #5 position this year. There's a possibility that he'll be back in the minors for awhile. How would he fit in Philly's system (considering both major and minor leagues)?

southpaw40
02-06-2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by soxtalker
You bring up good points. We should try to see it from Philly's point of view. Let me dig a bit deeper:

Does Philly have someone waiting in the wings in their farm system for the SS position?

Rauch could be a very good pitcher, but he'll probably only compete for our #5 position this year. There's a possibility that he'll be back in the minors for awhile. How would he fit in Philly's system (considering both major and minor leagues)?

I think that might be the major point here. I'm not familiar with the Phillies minor league system, but I think the strength of the Sox system is starting pitching. If that's true, then we should be able to develop a Rauch prospect replacement in the next season or two. In the meantime, we would be getting a player in Rollins who could address a couple of immediate needs....improved defense at shortstop and speed at the top of the order. Add to that the fact that he (Rollins) is no immediate threat to demand a huge contract, and it makes even more sense to make the trade.
I think it would improve the Sox for the upcoming season.
Even without this trade, I feel more comfortable going into the season with this team than any Sox team since the mid 90's.
go sox!

maurice
02-06-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i don't know. based on last year's performance rollins certainly isn't lightyears better (or maybe even at all better) than jose at this point.

:?:

To reiterate:

Originally posted by maurice
Rollins is a huge upgrade over Jose in just about every way (excepting power, facial hair, and possibly leadership). He's much better defensively, much faster, much younger, much cheaper, much more durable, etc.

Rollins's defense alone easily cancels out Manos's power, considering the position they play. When you add speed, age, salary, and the fact that Rollins plays every day, there's no comparison. Intangibles like leadership and the power of Jose's Freddy Mercury 'stash are by definition impossible to measure. OTOH, Rollins doesn't have a Claytonesque reputation as a club house cancer and has been known to sport a goatee.

There's no question that Rollins is a much more valuable player. This all comes down to whether KW is willing to part with Rauch or whether Phily is willing to take another pitching prospect instead.

gosox41
02-06-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by THE_HOOTER
According to Mel Antoneen from USA Today, the White Sox and Phillies are now talking and the trade would be Rauch and Jose Valentin for Jimmy Rollins.

I heard this on Sporting News Radio this afternoon.

I have no idea if there is any truth to the rumor, but I did hear it on the radio.

This trade would be a bad idea. Rollins had one good year and one below avg. year. There is no reason to think he's a future superstar based on that. The Sox are trying to win now and Jose is fine for the SS position.

Plus, as usual we'd be giving up too much for this guy.

Bob

Lip Man 1
02-06-2003, 12:20 PM
Folks:

In case you are interested I have been in Communication with Bob Vanderberg, he's the assistant sports editor of the Tribune, a die hard Sox fan and a White Sox author.

I let him know what was said on the radio yesterday and thought you might be interested in his reply:

"He must've been drunk........... If I'm the Phillies, there's no way I trade my young leadoff man, who can steal bases like crazy and can play a great shortstop, for a 34-year-old who can't play SS too well and a kid pitching prospect coming of arm problems---- not when I have a chance to win a division title.... it just doesn't make any sense from the Phils' standpoint............ it'd be an unbelievable deal for the Sox.........

Bob

Just FYI

Lip

SoxxoS
02-06-2003, 12:30 PM
Not to mention, Lip, that the Sox would most likely pick up Rogers with all that saved money. Vanderburg is exactly right. You have to give up something to get something, and giving up Rauch would be tough, but I wouldn't mind too much. Can't love pitchers who had arm troubles that early in their careers. Well, at least I can't.

FarmerAndy
02-06-2003, 01:08 PM
I'm not quite sure I want to give up Rauch. If the Phillies would take Valentin and a different pitcher, such as Malone, I would do this deal in a second.

Here's another thing to ponder: Why do we need to free up payroll to bring in Rogers or Finley. If the Sox are really trying to win this year, would they really go bankrupt if they just shelled out an extra 3 million or so?

ScottyTheSoxFan
02-06-2003, 03:16 PM
I dont like to lose Manos' leadership or Rauch's potential.

But also

THERE IS NO PHILLY MAKES THE TRADE!!! philly stole millwood from the braves, no way they get suckered into getting robbed for Rollins.

jeremyb1
02-06-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

In case you are interested I have been in Communication with Bob Vanderberg, he's the assistant sports editor of the Tribune, a die hard Sox fan and a White Sox author.

I let him know what was said on the radio yesterday and thought you might be interested in his reply:

"He must've been drunk........... If I'm the Phillies, there's no way I trade my young leadoff man, who can steal bases like crazy and can play a great shortstop, for a 34-year-old who can't play SS too well and a kid pitching prospect coming of arm problems---- not when I have a chance to win a division title.... it just doesn't make any sense from the Phils' standpoint............ it'd be an unbelievable deal for the Sox.........

i definately agree that there is next to no chance whatsoever that this deal would ever happen. it wouldn't make any sense for the phils. they already have a stacked rotation. right now there's no way rauch would compete for a rotation spot this year and maybe not even next season. also, despite my critisizm's of rollins, he's certainly a far better option than valentin in the long run.

i do disagree though that this is a slam dunk for the sox. rollins was never a top prospect like rauch and i don't think rauch can be considered done because he had some surgery.

soxtalker
02-06-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

In case you are interested I have been in Communication with Bob Vanderberg, he's the assistant sports editor of the Tribune, a die hard Sox fan and a White Sox author.

I let him know what was said on the radio yesterday and thought you might be interested in his reply:

"He must've been drunk........... If I'm the Phillies, there's no way I trade my young leadoff man, who can steal bases like crazy and can play a great shortstop, for a 34-year-old who can't play SS too well and a kid pitching prospect coming of arm problems---- not when I have a chance to win a division title.... it just doesn't make any sense from the Phils' standpoint............ it'd be an unbelievable deal for the Sox.........

Bob

Just FYI

Lip

Well, maybe. I'll again ask the question -- does anyone know the Phillies' farm system? (This is the sort of stuff that Baseball America is good at, so I should probably get a subscription.) Straight up it might not make sense, but it depends a lot on what they have in their system and what they need. Rollins may be expendable if they have one or two great SS prospects waiting in the wings. If that were the case, they might be looking at this as an opportunity to get a very good pitching prospect.

kermittheefrog
02-06-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
You're right jeremy. This is because Kermit pulled these numbers out of his arse. Not to mention the fact he still couldn't accurately tell you what he had done surgically.

Never let facts get ion the way of a rediculously speculative and irresponsible arguement, huh?

Look you still haven't given me a single source that says he didn't have labrom tear. And I have seen dozens of sources that said he did have one. Now if you can back up this claim that his labrum was A-OK and there was just an impingement then go ahead.

I'll admit I don't have data saying 10-15% of pitchers with torn labrums return A-OK but there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest he'll be 100%.

jeremyb1
02-06-2003, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Look you still haven't given me a single source that says he didn't have labrom tear. And I have seen dozens of sources that said he did have one. Now if you can back up this claim that his labrum was A-OK and there was just an impingement then go ahead.

I'll admit I don't have data saying 10-15% of pitchers with torn labrums return A-OK but there isn't a lot of evidence to suggest he'll be 100%.

i the important distinction is that there isn't much evidence that suggests all or most pitchers with labrum surgery will be 100%. i think in many cases its more of a hit or miss thing. certainly there are numberous guys that make full recoveries and numerous pitchers that aren't the same again or face repeated surgery. i don't feel like nearly all pitchers that have surgery fail to reach full health again. i'd say at least close to half do and that amongst the others, most either lose enough that they're not the same or never make it back.

kermittheefrog
02-07-2003, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i the important distinction is that there isn't much evidence that suggests all or most pitchers with labrum surgery will be 100%. i think in many cases its more of a hit or miss thing. certainly there are numberous guys that make full recoveries and numerous pitchers that aren't the same again or face repeated surgery. i don't feel like nearly all pitchers that have surgery fail to reach full health again. i'd say at least close to half do and that amongst the others, most either lose enough that they're not the same or never make it back.

Can you give me some examples of guys who have survived torn labrums? I really don't know the history of torn labrums, I just know pretty much every educated opinion seems to feel like Rauch will never be the same.

In other news I had some email dialogue with BP's new baseball medicine expert Will Carroll. He writes the team health reports. He seems very knowledgable regarding Rauch's injury and says he wrote about it in BP 2003. So I really can't wait to get my hands on the new book. He says Rauch may or may not of had an impingement and that even if he didn't it wouldn't be a major issue. Impingements are very common according to Carroll. He says the real issue was in fact labrum tear, technically a SLAP lesion. He didn't elaborate on the SLAP lesion and said there will be more info in the book.

No offense to Randar but I have to go with the guy who's paid to write a column on health issues in baseball. Rauch probably did have an impingement like Randar says but seems to have suffered the SLAP lesion/torn labrum in addition to an impingement.

jeremyb1
02-07-2003, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Can you give me some examples of guys who have survived torn labrums? I really don't know the history of torn labrums, I just know pretty much every educated opinion seems to feel like Rauch will never be the same.

In other news I had some email dialogue with BP's new baseball medicine expert Will Carroll. He writes the team health reports. He seems very knowledgable regarding Rauch's injury and says he wrote about it in BP 2003. So I really can't wait to get my hands on the new book. He says Rauch may or may not of had an impingement and that even if he didn't it wouldn't be a major issue. Impingements are very common according to Carroll. He says the real issue was in fact labrum tear, technically a SLAP lesion. He didn't elaborate on the SLAP lesion and said there will be more info in the book.

No offense to Randar but I have to go with the guy who's paid to write a column on health issues in baseball. Rauch probably did have an impingement like Randar says but seems to have suffered the SLAP lesion/torn labrum in addition to an impingement.

that's definately a problem i've come across. its hard for me to come up with pitchers that have had torn labrums. i don't think that's because they're more rare than other types of arm surgeries. look at all the guys that have had them on the sox in the last couple years. they're obviously not uncommon injuries. at the same time, tommy john has always been considered the really major arm injury at least by the mainstream media and it tends to take longer before you can start throwing again. for those reasons tommy john is much more publisized and i could easily rattle off guys that have had it in the last few seasons. i'll try to dig up what i can.

as for educated people speaking out on torn labrum's i haven't heard that much. i think i read an interview with james andrews where he indicated that his medical opinion was that shoulder surgery was more serious at this point in time than tommy john surgery, but what does that mean? maybe there's an 85% chance of recovery from tommy john and a 75% recovery from shoulder surgery. that wouldn't mean a ton to me. considering how much the bp guys make comments about labrum surgery i've never seen any explanation as to how its so much more serious. you'd think with their fondness of empirical data, they'd quote stats about recovery rate and whatnot. personally i haven't seen it so i'm not blown away about what people state despite their credibility unless their are some facts to back up their opinions.

jeremyb1
02-07-2003, 02:14 AM
ok. i found the interview. its with frank jobe not james andrews.

BP: When pitchers hear it's an elbow problem instead of a shoulder, there's almost become this sense of relief, given how tough it can be to repair a shoulder. What steps are being taken to fix the shoulder?

FJ: The elbow is almost a hinge, which is a simple joint. The shoulder has four joints involved and 21 muscles. They need to all be in good condition and functioning in a synchronous pattern. It's easier to get the shoulder out of whack and it's harder to get all the joints and muscles rehabbed and back in top shape. If you're lucky enough to have a pitcher with one diagnosis in the shoulder, that's easier. But there are often three or four problems. If you beat up more than one structure, it's very hard to fully repair.

BP: There have been buzzwords for scary pitching injuries. When people heard the words "rotator cuff" in the past, for example. Now more and more it's "torn labrum." Does that qualify as the worst shoulder injury you can get?

FJ: You can fix that if that's all that's torn. But if you've gone on to tear the labrum, you've probably torn the undersurface of the rotator cuff and stretched the capsule of ligaments. That would be three diagnoses. Can you fix all that? You can fix it. But can they get back to the same level of pitching they were before is the question.

that again implies that its more serious than tommy john surgery but the question is how much more serious? just because its more serious doesn't mean there's an incredibly low chance of recovery.

i tried looking for pitchers with labrum surgery but its just too difficult to find a good database to look at injuries. as far as i can tell there isn't any really good research on recovery rates. as i said before i think that 2 years after the surgery there are other factors which can help you to evaluate the chances of recovery.

kermittheefrog
02-07-2003, 02:25 AM
I also did some research on both shoulder impingements and SLAP lesions. Basically a shoulder impingement is a minor injury. Typically shoulder impingements are treated without surgery. The one source I have specifically addressing high level athletes with impingements says surgery doesn't provide good results.

SLAP lesion surgeries are extensive because the tear extends to the labrum's connection to the bicep tendon. Basically there was some hardcore work done on Rauch's shoulder involving miniature screws. Not a minor impingement.

EnricoPallazzo
02-07-2003, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by moochpuppy
I like this trade only if we then ship Rollins, Rowand and Josh Stewart to the Royals for Beltran and Febles.

EnricoPallazzo
02-07-2003, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by moochpuppy
I like this trade only if we then ship Rollins, Rowand and Josh Stewart to the Royals for Beltran and Febles.


I like this trade as it is. Rollins is 24 and isn't the first player to have a sophomore slump. And what is all this nonsense about Rauch? Anyone remember Tex Worthen, Ross Baumgartner, Ken Kravec, Scott Ruffcorn, James Baldwin, ad nauseum?

As for the idea of trading for Beltran and Febles, Hell! give KC Rollins, Rowand, Rauch, anyone in the Sox system whose name starts with an R, if you can sign Beltran to a 4 year contract. What the heck, throw in Borchard too.

baggio202
02-07-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
I like this trade as it is. Rollins is 24 and isn't the first player to have a sophomore slump. And what is all this nonsense about Rauch? Anyone remember Tex Worthen, Ross Baumgartner, Ken Kravec, Scott Ruffcorn, James Baldwin, ad nauseum?

As for the idea of trading for Beltran and Febles, Hell! give KC Rollins, Rowand, Rauch, anyone in the Sox system whose name starts with an R, if you can sign Beltran to a 4 year contract. What the heck, throw in Borchard too.

i take it youre a beltran fan??? :smile:

EnricoPallazzo
02-07-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by baggio202
i take it youre a beltran fan??? :smile:


Beltran is with a clueless organization that has to get something for him because he is gone at the end of the season anyway. That meets the criterion of availability.

He hits well and with power from both sides, is an excellent center fielder, steals over 30 bases a year, and in all probability, has not reached his upside yet. He would be the answer to the speed at the top of the lineup problem and the center field problem. Because he is an exciting player to watch, I think he would boost attendance.
The above meets and exceeds the criterion of desirability.

He would make everyone in the batting order better and would render Lee's outfield adventures more palatable.

I do admit that I have not perused the organization for all players whose names start with R but the offer still stands. What the hell, throw in another letter or two.

I am astonished that so many Sox fans are smitten by Rauch. As for Borchard, maybe he'll be great, maybe he'll be average. Maybe he'll never hit Major League pitching. No one knows.

jeremyb1
02-07-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by EnricoPallazzo
I like this trade as it is. Rollins is 24 and isn't the first player to have a sophomore slump. And what is all this nonsense about Rauch? Anyone remember Tex Worthen, Ross Baumgartner, Ken Kravec, Scott Ruffcorn, James Baldwin, ad nauseum?

so what? those were pitching prospects for the sox. those are where the comparisons with rauch begin and end. none of those prospects were ever close to as good as rauch (i'm not sure any ever cracked the top 30 prospects in baseball while rauch was at least top 5). also, one of the key issues with rauch is his health, which wasn't an issue with most of those pitchers.

LongDistanceFan
02-09-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
so what? those were pitching prospects for the sox. those are where the comparisons with rauch begin and end. none of those prospects were ever close to as good as rauch (i'm not sure any ever cracked the top 30 prospects in baseball while rauch was at least top 5). also, one of the key issues with rauch is his health, which wasn't an issue with most of those pitchers.

i know this subject is a moot point, but why not use some of the prospect we were talking about and use it to trade for miguel tedja (sp) ss from oak?

he might be availble if he doesn't sign a contract extension. per espn article

kermittheefrog
02-09-2003, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
i know this subject is a moot point, but why not use some of the prospect we were talking about and use it to trade for miguel tedja (sp) ss from oak?

he might be availble if he doesn't sign a contract extension. per espn article

It's not really Beane's style to trade a guy away like that. He goes all out every season and lets guys walk if he can't sign them. I'd say it's a good plan. If they don't go anywhere in the playoff they still get compensation picks and if the magic happens and the A's go all the way there may be revenue to keep his players.

Beavis
02-15-2003, 10:18 PM
Is anyone else worrried about Rauch? I think he lost everything when he had that surgery. No one needs a 6' 10" guy throwing junk up there. Unless he has made some progress, you can't be worried about losing him.

Daver
02-15-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by Beavis
Is anyone else worrried about Rauch? I think he lost everything when he had that surgery. No one needs a 6' 10" guy throwing junk up there. Unless he has made some progress, you can't be worried about losing him.

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

Randar68
02-15-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Beavis
Is anyone else worrried about Rauch? I think he lost everything when he had that surgery. No one needs a 6' 10" guy throwing junk up there. Unless he has made some progress, you can't be worried about losing him.

Maybe you missed his last 2 or 3 outings last year when his velocity was up 3 mph or so and he had his control back. He still has another 2 mph or so off his heater that should be back now...

hold2dibber
02-16-2003, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
so what? those were pitching prospects for the sox. those are where the comparisons with rauch begin and end. none of those prospects were ever close to as good as rauch (i'm not sure any ever cracked the top 30 prospects in baseball while rauch was at least top 5). also, one of the key issues with rauch is his health, which wasn't an issue with most of those pitchers.

I am very impressed with Rauch and feel that there is a very good chance that he'll be very successful at the MLB level. Nonetheless, I'll point out that if you go back and look, I think you'll find that there are plenty of top 5 prospects in baseball over the last 10 years who have amounted to absolutely nothing. So the fact, standing alone, that Rauch was/is considered one of the top prospects in baseball doesn't mean that much. And the fact that he has suffered a labrum injury already doesn't bode well. Conversely, Beltran has already proven that he is a major league impact player. So Rauch for Beltran, I think, would be hard to turn down.

On the other hand, I believe Beltran is represted by Boras. Boras tests the market and won't sign a long term deal with KC or anybody else. He's going to test the market. So even if the Sox were to trade for him, he'd be gone in a heart beat (since the Sox aren't going to beat the market to sign him). Plus, if the Sox are going to pay big money to sign someone outside of the organization, I'd want it to be a starting pitcher or a lefthanded masher.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I am very impressed with Rauch and feel that there is a very good chance that he'll be very successful at the MLB level. Nonetheless, I'll point out that if you go back and look, I think you'll find that there are plenty of top 5 prospects in baseball over the last 10 years who have amounted to absolutely nothing. So the fact, standing alone, that Rauch was/is considered one of the top prospects in baseball doesn't mean that much. And the fact that he has suffered a labrum injury already doesn't bode well. Conversely, Beltran has already proven that he is a major league impact player. So Rauch for Beltran, I think, would be hard to turn down.

On the other hand, I believe Beltran is represted by Boras. Boras tests the market and won't sign a long term deal with KC or anybody else. He's going to test the market. So even if the Sox were to trade for him, he'd be gone in a heart beat (since the Sox aren't going to beat the market to sign him). Plus, if the Sox are going to pay big money to sign someone outside of the organization, I'd want it to be a starting pitcher or a lefthanded masher.

First of all, good post. Second, and i havent read the above posts, someone actually thought we shouldnt deal Rauch for Beltran? OH MY GOD. That would be the biggest steal in recent history. AT this point, Rauch is barely worth anything. The thinking of some people amazes me.

Randar68
02-16-2003, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I am very impressed with Rauch and feel that there is a very good chance that he'll be very successful at the MLB level. Nonetheless, I'll point out that if you go back and look, I think you'll find that there are plenty of top 5 prospects in baseball over the last 10 years who have amounted to absolutely nothing. So the fact, standing alone, that Rauch was/is considered one of the top prospects in baseball doesn't mean that much. And the fact that he has suffered a labrum injury already doesn't bode well. Conversely, Beltran has already proven that he is a major league impact player. So Rauch for Beltran, I think, would be hard to turn down.

On the other hand, I believe Beltran is represted by Boras. Boras tests the market and won't sign a long term deal with KC or anybody else. He's going to test the market. So even if the Sox were to trade for him, he'd be gone in a heart beat (since the Sox aren't going to beat the market to sign him). Plus, if the Sox are going to pay big money to sign someone outside of the organization, I'd want it to be a starting pitcher or a lefthanded masher.

This is a nice rebuttal, except for the fact that Rauch didn't really have a torn labrum...

kermittheefrog
02-16-2003, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
This is a nice rebuttal, except for the fact that Rauch didn't really have a torn labrum...

Okay Randar, quit being a dick. Despite me asking several times over for sources backing you up, and providing valid sources backing up the fact (yes fact!) Rauch had a torn labrum you've offered no proof Rauch didn't tear his labrum. At one point I felt like you had a lot of credibility but right now it just looks like you'll make up anything (I talked to scouts that said X, Rauch doesn't actually have a torn labrum) to make yourself look right. And you make some people believe you and the ones that don't you won't respond to. There's no freaking reason in the world to not believe Rauch didn't have a torn labrum. Quit BSing people. Don't be a lying jerk just because you put some effort into knowing the baseball world.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Okay Randar, quit being a dick. Despite me asking several times over for sources backing you up, and providing valid sources backing up the fact (yes fact!) Rauch had a torn labrum you've offered no proof Rauch didn't tear his labrum. At one point I felt like you had a lot of credibility but right now it just looks like you'll make up anything (I talked to scouts that said X, Rauch doesn't actually have a torn labrum) to make yourself look right. And you make some people believe you and the ones that don't you won't respond to. There's no freaking reason in the world to not believe Rauch didn't have a torn labrum. Quit BSing people. Don't be a lying jerk just because you put some effort into knowing the baseball world.


LOL, go Kermie. :gulp:

kermittheefrog
02-16-2003, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
LOL, go Kermie. :gulp:

I can't be the only one that feels like that. He hasn't given us any reason to buy into his claims.

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 01:59 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I can't be the only one that feels like that. He hasn't given us any reason to buy into his claims.

LOL uh no. Dont get me started on Randar. :gulp:

Randar68
02-16-2003, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I can't be the only one that feels like that. He hasn't given us any reason to buy into his claims.


Please talk to someone credible before I make you look like an ass. Loose bodies and normal fraying are not the same as a torn labrum. If you didn't notice the difference between a 3-5 month recovery and a 8-12 month recovery, I feel sorry for anybody who claims to have been a part of your educational process...

Chisox_cali
02-16-2003, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Please talk to someone credible before I make you look like an ass. Loose bodies and normal fraying are not the same as a torn labrum. If you didn't notice the difference between a 3-5 month recovery and a 8-12 month recovery, I feel sorry for anybody who claims to have been a part of your educational process...

I knew I remembered a disscussion about this topic on this board so I did a search, and found a post from 2/12/02, it's from a Q & A session at baseballamerica.com:



What was the extent of Jon Rauch's surgery last year? I have heard wide-ranging reports that it was relatively minor, from he could have pitched in 2001 and had surgery in the offseason, to that it was a torn labrum. That he'll be ready for spring training and is expected to have no long-term effects makes me think the former is true.

Tim's right, in that the reports on Rauch's shoulder surgery have run the gamut. I called the White Sox and talked to both their minor league and public-relations departments, who both described the procedure performed by Dr. James Andrews as repair of his rotator cuff and labrum. He had a hook-like growth removed from his shoulder, a fairly minor procedure that Keith Foulke, Bobby Howry and Sean Lowe had in the past and returned quickly from. It was more of a cleaning out than fixing any severe tears. With an arm like Rauch's, the White Sox weren't going to take any chances and have him try to pitch through his shoulder problems.


Take it how you want...

Here's (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7442&highlight=growth+the+shoulder) the original thread.

Randar68
02-16-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by Chisox_cali




Kermie, oh where are you Kermie?????

*****!

Research, my friend. Before you attack me, do some...

kermittheefrog
02-16-2003, 02:00 PM
Wow thats really funny. Somehow that one chat is more important than any other information available. I don't buy it. For two reasons:

1) The most detailed information I've gotten is from Will Carroll who gave me the specific type of tear it was, a SLAP lesion. Carroll has had access to MLB's own injury record, the Redbook. There isn't reason to trust the minor league PR guy as a source as much as Carroll. Most information given to the media like that isn't checked and doubled checked because it's not important to give the media 100% accurate information. Carroll on the other hand has done his research, he's an expect on major league health.

2) Rauch's recovery did take closer to 8-12 months. He had surgery in mid-May and didn't begin throwing from a mound until January. He wasn't near full strength until late last season. Doesn't sound like a short recovery to me.

At this point I don't expect Randar to reply back because he's too busy feeling good about himself for being "right".

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Wow thats really funny. Somehow that one chat is more important than any other information available. I don't buy it. For two reasons:

1) The most detailed information I've gotten is from Will Carroll who gave me the specific type of tear it was, a SLAP lesion. Carroll has had access to MLB's own injury record, the Redbook. There isn't reason to trust the minor league PR guy as a source as much as Carroll. Most information given to the media like that isn't checked and doubled checked because it's not important to give the media 100% accurate information. Carroll on the other hand has done his research, he's an expect on major league health.

2) Rauch's recovery did take closer to 8-12 months. He had surgery in mid-May and didn't begin throwing from a mound until January. He wasn't near full strength until late last season. Doesn't sound like a short recovery to me.

At this point I don't expect Randar to reply back because he's too busy feeling good about himself for being "right".

I'm with Kermie. The time it took to heal supports his opinion and evidence. Plus, Randar is just wrong too often to be right about this.

Randar68
02-16-2003, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
I'm with Kermie. The time it took to heal supports his opinion and evidence. Plus, Randar is just wrong too often to be right about this.


You guys are a joke.

Randar: "Hey look the sky is blue"
Kermie and Bmr: "Can't possibly be because Randar thinks so..."

The evidence is right there, take it or leave it. I have no reason to further this arguement...

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
You guys are a joke.

Randar: "Hey look the sky is blue"
Kermie and Bmr: "Can't possibly be because Randar thinks so..."

The evidence is right there, take it or leave it. I have no reason to further this arguement...

LOL Randar, as you once said to PHG, youre way too easy to get to......take a chill pill, bro. :D:

kermittheefrog
02-16-2003, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
You guys are a joke.

Randar: "Hey look the sky is blue"
Kermie and Bmr: "Can't possibly be because Randar thinks so..."

The evidence is right there, take it or leave it. I have no reason to further this arguement...

Are you trolling? There is much more evidence on the side of Rauch's injury being severe.

WinningUgly!
02-16-2003, 09:04 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/winningugly/WSIbanners/TOMATOAWARD.JPG

Randar68
02-16-2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Are you trolling? There is much more evidence on the side of Rauch's injury being severe.


I'm starting to wonder if you can read letters, or if your stathead is only tuned into #'s...

Daver
02-16-2003, 09:08 PM
LMAO!!!!


Great job WU,that will be made into a tag ASAP.

WinningUgly!
02-16-2003, 09:12 PM
Originally posted by daver
LMAO!!!!


Great job WU,that will be made into a tag ASAP.

Thanks, I thought you'd like that. It'll probably be used next in the "Welcome Back Daver" thread. :redneck

kermittheefrog
02-16-2003, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm starting to wonder if you can read letters, or if your stathead is only tuned into #'s...

Oh I'm sorry I don't take your word to be undisputable truth. Your evidence is:

1) Few and far between.

2) Not detailed.

3) Not backed up by Rauch's actual recovery.

And if you've taken time to read the thread you don't even address anything in detail regarding Rauch's injury. It took someone else to find the BA chat. Are you good for anything other than being a smartass with a superiority complex?

Bmr31
02-16-2003, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Oh I'm sorry I don't take your word to be undisputable truth. Your evidence is:

1) Few and far between.

2) Not detailed.

3) Not backed up by Rauch's actual recovery.

And if you've taken time to read the thread you don't even address anything in detail regarding Rauch's injury. It took someone else to find the BA chat. Are you good for anything other than being a smartass with a superiority complex?


LMFAAAAAAAAAAAO!!!!

Randar68
02-16-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Oh I'm sorry I don't take your word to be undisputable truth. Your evidence is:

1) Few and far between.

2) Not detailed.

3) Not backed up by Rauch's actual recovery.

And if you've taken time to read the thread you don't even address anything in detail regarding Rauch's injury. It took someone else to find the BA chat. Are you good for anything other than being a smartass with a superiority complex?


Originally posted by Randar68
Loose bodies and normal fraying are not the same as a torn labrum. If you didn't notice the difference between a 3-5 month recovery and a 8-12 month recovery, I feel sorry for anybody who claims to have been a part of your educational process...


See my above comment. Sounds specific enough to me. If you need a direct quote from Jon to be convinced (I doubt you would even then), then I will do my best.

You are wrong. I am sorry to report. I am sorry you can't accept that. Jon was back on the mound 5 months after surgery. Whether or not he had his control or 100% of his velocity back matters not in his medical recovery time.

He had said growth/hook removed and had some normal fraying of the rotator cuff shaved since they were already in there. It was not an overly serious injury/surgery, it just caused some discomfort.

Is that specific enough???

Randar68
02-16-2003, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
LMFAAAAAAAAAAAO!!!!

grow up.

kermittheefrog
02-17-2003, 12:38 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
See my above comment. Sounds specific enough to me. If you need a direct quote from Jon to be convinced (I doubt you would even then), then I will do my best.

You are wrong. I am sorry to report. I am sorry you can't accept that. Jon was back on the mound 5 months after surgery. Whether or not he had his control or 100% of his velocity back matters not in his medical recovery time.

He had said growth/hook removed and had some normal fraying of the rotator cuff shaved since they were already in there. It was not an overly serious injury/surgery, it just caused some discomfort.

Is that specific enough???

How about something other than your word? Like hard evidence? A reputible news source? Ya know like the one I've gotten my information from. I've gotten information from Baseball Prospectus/Will Carroll on what the injury was and Rotowire for his recovery and when he was back on the mound. You're saying the guy on the message board is more reliable? Sounds far fetched to me.

baggio202
02-17-2003, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
grow up.

no randar, you're the one that needs to grow up...anyone that disagrees with you will get smart ass remark like thats the most ignorant thing (or most ignorant person) ever...or im sorry for whoever educated you ...blah,blah blah...i sick of your holier than thou attitude...you think your a friggen expert on every detail of baseball...it is possible for somebody to disagree with you and have a good point or legit arguement...hard as it is for you to believe..

TheBigHurt
02-17-2003, 05:45 AM
what'd i miss?????????

Vsahajpal
02-17-2003, 08:30 AM
05.16 White Sox prospect Jon Rauch will undergo arthroscopic surgery on his shoulder next week, according to the Chicago Tribune. The Sox are taking a cautious approach in correcting a minor problem that others have pitched through.

04.23 The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Jon Rauch returned to action Sunday night for Triple-A Charlotte after being rested because of shoulder inflammation. He allowed three earned runs on seven hits in 3 2/3 innings.

04.11 Jon Rauch is on the Triple-A disabled list because of a sore shoulder, according to the Chicago Tribune.

http://www.rototimes.com/getOldPlayerNotes.pl?4267+0+Jon_Rauch+2001


2001 Highlights:
Was rated by Baseball America as the No. 2 Prospect in the White Sox organization behind outfielder Joe Borchard...underwent season-ending shoulder surgery on 5/24...surgery was performed by Dr. James Andrews in Birmingham, Alabama...surgery involved repairing a Type 2 acromion, a rotator cuff debridement and a labral repair...began rehabilitation on 5/28 in Tucson...

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/team/cws_player_bio.jsp?club_context=mlb&playerid=400010

Bursal side, partial-thickness rotator cuff tears are associated with a type II acromion (5,11).

http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1997/06jun/graphics/wolin2.gif



And finally...

Patients with partial-thickness rotator cuff tears treated with arthroscopic subacromial decompression and debridement are placed in a simple sling. Active-assisted range-of-motion exercise begins immediately. Full active motion is achieved within 2 weeks. Resistive exercises and progressive strengthening start during the second week and continue for up to 12 weeks. Full return to sports activities requires 2 to 3 months, but high-level overhead athletes may take longer.



http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1997/06jun/wolin.htm


Randar, you are correct sir!

hold2dibber
02-17-2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
This is a nice rebuttal, except for the fact that Rauch didn't really have a torn labrum...

I didn't say that he had a torn labrum. Read my post again. I said he had a labrum injury. I make no contention that I know the true nature or extent of that injury. I simply said that he has had a labrum injury. And it is my suspicion (admittedly not backed by any research or objective evidence) that the fact that he has suffered from a labrum injury makes him more of a health risk than someone who has not suffered such an injury.

kermittheefrog
02-17-2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal

Randar, you are correct sir!

Thanks for the information Vic. You presented some solid evidence to Randar's case. However, couldn't the labral repair listed in the surgery be addressing the more serious SLAP lesion Carroll refers to? Jeez, we need a medical expert.

My real issue here was how much of a dick Randar is being. You can't simply state something and provide no evidence outside of your holy word. Apparently Randar is above providing evidence to support whatever he may be stating.

voodoochile
02-17-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Thanks for the information Vic. I still might believe Carroll on this one as teams aren't exactly up front and honest about injury information. But I'm not going to argue about who to believe. At least you presented some very solid evidence to Randar's case. My real issue here was how much of a dick Randar is being. You can't simply state something and provide no evidence outside of your holy word. Apparently Randar is above providing evidence to support whatever he may be stating.

Just want to jump in here briefly before the emotions get any more heated.

2 points:

1)sometimes people remember things, that they read or heard, but they don't have a link for it. That doesn't mean they are lying, merely that they cannot prove they aren't.

2)And this applies to everyone: IT TAKES TWO TO ARGUE! If another poster is upsetting you by disagreeing with what you say in strong terms, it won't help the argument to start slinging names and accusations around. Everyone needs to take a step back before things are said that cause a huge fight to break out. I really don't want to lock up this thread because people are arguing about the extent of the labrum injury that Rauch suffered. From what I have read neither side is entirely wrong. Sounds as if there were problems with the labrum, but not a tear.

Can't we all just get along?

Randar68
02-17-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I didn't say that he had a torn labrum. Read my post again. I said he had a labrum injury. I make no contention that I know the true nature or extent of that injury. I simply said that he has had a labrum injury. And it is my suspicion (admittedly not backed by any research or objective evidence) that the fact that he has suffered from a labrum injury makes him more of a health risk than someone who has not suffered such an injury.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your remarks then...

Hangar18
02-17-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Just want to jump in here briefly before the emotions get any more heated.

2 points:

1)sometimes people remember things, that they read or heard, but they don't have a link for it. That doesn't mean they are lying, merely that they cannot prove they aren't.

2)And this applies to everyone: IT TAKES TWO TO ARGUE! If another poster is upsetting you by disagreeing with what you say in strong terms, it won't help the argument to start slinging names and accusations around. Everyone needs to take a step back before things are said that cause a huge fight to break out. I really don't want to lock up this thread because people are arguing about the extent of the labrum injury that Rauch suffered. From what I have read neither side is entirely wrong. Sounds as if there were problems with the labrum, but not a tear.

Can't we all just get along?

Great Point. From Reading this, and having to dissect the name calling, It seems to me that Both Sides are Partially (no pun intended) right about all of this. This is the Kind Of Question that most likely CANT be answered Today, but in 1 year.
I liked both points.....just not the name calling LoL.

You gotta Love the Passion....another Reason Im a White Sox Fan

Randar68
02-17-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
My real issue here was how much of a dick Randar is being. You can't simply state something and provide no evidence outside of your holy word. Apparently Randar is above providing evidence to support whatever he may be stating.


Look, my real issue here is that you and several others have been mainly responsible for propagating inaccurate information regarding Jon's injury and the operation he had performed. I am sorry that BP, your heroes, are incorrect in this matter.

I am tired of making this point over and over, so that is the main reason for my testiness or stand-offish behavior. I am sorry about this.

Look, at the time in the arguement when you were begging for info, I didn't feel compelled to provide it or sources. BA was only one of my sources. I talked to Jon in brief about it in the bullpen area last season near the beginning of the year. He did not elaborate, but said he didn't have any tears, just some minor repair. He said it was very uncomfortable when he would throw, and was glad it wasn't something more serious. I didn't get into the specifics of it with him, so I'm sorry I couldn't provide you with something along the lines of Vic. Even so, if at the time I had said "I talked to Jon", you and BMR would have not believed it, so...

Take it for what it's worth. I am sorry for being so curt in this regard...

I think it is the responsibility of people here to provide accurate information. I understand that at the time, you thought you had that info and the source to support it. I didn't think you did when this all started. I think it is important, as we claim to be some of the most informed sports fans around, that we provide and disseminate accurate information. I have repeatedly explained Jon's injury (the non-medical version lol) on this board, and it continues to be posted that he had torn this or that.

Sorry, I guess I should work on my patience...

kermittheefrog
02-17-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Look, my real issue here is that you and several others have been mainly responsible for propagating inaccurate information regarding Jon's injury and the operation he had performed. I am sorry that BP, your heroes, are incorrect in this matter.

I am tired of making this point over and over, so that is the main reason for my testiness or stand-offish behavior. I am sorry about this.

Look, at the time in the arguement when you were begging for info, I didn't feel compelled to provide it or sources. BA was only one of my sources. I talked to Jon in brief about it in the bullpen area last season near the beginning of the year. He did not elaborate, but said he didn't have any tears, just some minor repair. He said it was very uncomfortable when he would throw, and was glad it wasn't something more serious. I didn't get into the specifics of it with him, so I'm sorry I couldn't provide you with something along the lines of Vic. Even so, if at the time I had said "I talked to Jon", you and BMR would have not believed it, so...

Take it for what it's worth. I am sorry for being so curt in this regard...

I think it is the responsibility of people here to provide accurate information. I understand that at the time, you thought you had that info and the source to support it. I didn't think you did when this all started. I think it is important, as we claim to be some of the most informed sports fans around, that we provide and disseminate accurate information. I have repeatedly explained Jon's injury (the non-medical version lol) on this board, and it continues to be posted that he had torn this or that.

Sorry, I guess I should work on my patience...

Thanks Randar. It's great to see a post explaining what you thought about the discussion.

Vsahajpal
02-17-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Thanks for the information Vic. You presented some solid evidence to Randar's case. However, couldn't the labral repair listed in the surgery be addressing the more serious SLAP lesion Carroll refers to? Jeez, we need a medical expert.

My real issue here was how much of a dick Randar is being. You can't simply state something and provide no evidence outside of your holy word. Apparently Randar is above providing evidence to support whatever he may be stating.


Kermit, it was a SLAP lesion. It was a Type II SLAP lesion, which is far less serious than a Type III SLAP lesion, in which a full tear is present.

Randar68
02-17-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
Kermit, it was a SLAP lesion. It was a Type II SLAP lesion, which is far less serious than a Type III SLAP lesion, in which a full tear is present.


Sheeesh, type II, III... haha, now I'm confused. What is the difference between the 2?

Vsahajpal
02-17-2003, 11:21 PM
68, this basically summarizes Dr. Andrews' procedure on Rauch:

http://www.shoulder.com/slap.html

I'm confusing myself, too. There are actually 4 SLAP lesions, not 3. And SLAP II is actually more problematic physiologically than SLAP III, but I believe not as harmful as SLAP IV. He underwent debridement, which is common for lesser SLAP lesions. Debridement is just removal of necrotic (dead) tissue.

moochpuppy
02-18-2003, 08:50 AM
:rauch

"Someone just SLAP me."

Randar68
02-18-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Vsahajpal
68, this basically summarizes Dr. Andrews' procedure on Rauch:

http://www.shoulder.com/slap.html

I'm confusing myself, too. There are actually 4 SLAP lesions, not 3. And SLAP II is actually more problematic physiologically than SLAP III, but I believe not as harmful as SLAP IV. He underwent debridement, which is common for lesser SLAP lesions. Debridement is just removal of necrotic (dead) tissue.


JESUS! I had that done to my knee basically. Oh well. Live and learn.

I do know that tissue removal/clipping is a ton easier, less risky, and quicker recovery than any kind of work where they actually repair tissue.