PDA

View Full Version : Why not upgrade the pitching staff?


PaleHoseGeorge
02-05-2003, 05:15 PM
I'm not sure what the debate over Rogers can possibly be. If Rogers is acquired AS A FREE AGENT, he costs Sox Fans nothing but the money JR spends on him. Supporting this free agent acquisition ought to be a no brainer. Let me explain.

We can debate whether Rogers is better than Wright or Rauch as the #4 or #5 starter on the team. However, there is NO DEBATE Rogers is far better than the WORST pitcher currently on the Sox pitching staff. If the Sox sign Rogers, guys like Mike Porzio (or Kevin Beirne or Alan Embree before him) are suddenly without a job. This is a GOOD thing, and there can't be any debate about it.

It's a specious argument to suggest (as others have) that acquiring free agent Rogers blocks the path of young pitchers like Rauch. B.S. This is a PITCHING STAFF we're talking about. There is plenty of work for EVERYBODY who pitches well. Rauch will get precisely the amount of work that he shows the ability to handle. If he pitches great, he sticks in the rotation. If he struggles, it's off to the bullpen for spot starts and long relief. If he can't handle that job, it's back to Charlotte. Rauch's REAL ABILITY is the deciding factor. What beef could any of us possibly have with that?

It's stupid to suggest a manager wouldn't use his BEST pitchers, unless of course you think the manager is incompetent. In that case, don't be against acquiring free agent Rogers. Instead, you should be against Jerry Manuel keeping his job as manager. Not acquiring Rogers solves nothing.

Please note--I am NOT in favor of the Sox TRADING for an aging veteran pitcher. The upside to any trade is far more limited than a free agent signing. The real beauty of the Bartolo Colon trade was how little we gave up to get him. It's not practical to expect other pitchers (like Reed in Philadelphia) will come to us so cheap.

Joe Crede's progress at 3B was blocked because he was a position player and only one player can play everyday. Pitching is a whole different ballgame. I'm surprised so many of you fail to notice the difference.

Stated more simply: You can never have enough pitching.

Nuff said.

Pete_SSAC
02-05-2003, 05:36 PM
*saulte*

- Pete

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm not sure what the debate over Rogers can possibly be. If Rogers is acquired AS A FREE AGENT, he costs Sox Fans nothing but the money JR spends on him. Supporting this free agent acquisition ought to be a no brainer. Let me explain.

We can debate whether Rogers is better than Wright or Rauch as the #4 or #5 starter on the team. However, there is NO DEBATE Rogers is far better than the WORST pitcher currently on the Sox pitching staff. If the Sox sign Rogers, guys like Mike Porzio (or Kevin Beirne or Alan Embree before him) are suddenly without a job. This is a GOOD thing, and there can't be any debate about it.

It's a specious argument to suggest (as others have) that acquiring free agent Rogers blocks the path of young pitchers like Rauch. B.S. This is a PITCHING STAFF we're talking about. There is plenty of work for EVERYBODY who pitches well. Rauch will get precisely the amount of work that he shows the ability to handle. If he pitches great, he sticks in the rotation. If he struggles, it's off to the bullpen for spot starts and long relief. If he can't handle that job, it's back to Charlotte. Rauch's REAL ABILITY is the deciding factor. What beef could any of us possibly have with that?

It's stupid to suggest a manager wouldn't use his BEST pitchers, unless of course you think the manager is incompetent. In that case, don't be against acquiring free agent Rogers. Instead, you should be against Jerry Manuel keeping his job as manager. Not acquiring Rogers solves nothing.

Please note--I am NOT in favor of the Sox TRADING for an aging veteran pitcher. The upside to any trade is far more limited than a free agent signing. The real beauty of the Bartolo Colon trade was how little we gave up to get him. It's not practical to expect other pitchers (like Reed in Philadelphia) will come to us so cheap.

Joe Crede's progress at 3B was blocked because he was a position player and only one player can play everyday. Pitching is a whole different ballgame. I'm surprised so many of you fail to notice the difference.

Stated more simply: You can never have enough pitching.

Nuff said.

problem is that if kenny rogers signs he's going to be in the rotation. you just don't stretch your budget to sign a veteran starter coming off of a good season and then put him in the pen because another guy is pitching better. if we give rogers serious money he will be in the rotation. even if he struggles he'll be given a lot of opportunities as ritchie was last season before finally being shut down.

something like signing loaiza and herdia to minor league deals is risk free because as guys that couldn't get major league deals they'd be agreeable to pitching in the pen since their other options most likely don't involve pitching in the majors. also, if they don't make the team we don't have to pay them. if we sign someone like rogers we don't have the option of just tossing him aside.

also, the money jr spends doesn't affect the fans a great deal but there are certainly ramifications. we still have a budget and signing rogers could elimnate money we might want later to sign a different player or acquire a player with a substantial salary in a trade.

Lip Man 1
02-05-2003, 06:05 PM
Pale Hose George:

Bravo! Agree completely!! (and I wouldn't be opposed to signing Helling as still MORE insurance!)

Lip

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 06:10 PM
oh. i also forgot the most important point i mentioned in the "kenny rogers" thread. i think that we would lose a first round draft pick for signing rogers so it certainly wouldn't be something for nothing.

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
oh. i also forgot the most important point i mentioned in the "kenny rogers" thread. i think that we would lose a first round draft pick for signing rogers so it certainly wouldn't be something for nothing.

Yeah losing what will likely turn out to become a career minor leaguer will be a crushing blow...

MarkEdward
02-05-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Yeah losing what will likely turn out to become a career minor leaguer will be a crushing blow...

Yeah, like he'll probably join other first round busts like Will Clark, Barry Larkin, Robin Yount, Harold Baines, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, Rafael Palmeiro, and Barry Bonds.

Who needs the draft when you can sign mediocre free agent pitchers instead!

PaleHoseGeorge
02-05-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Yeah, like he'll probably join other first round busts like Will Clark, Barry Larkin, Robin Yount, Harold Baines, Dave Winfield, Paul Molitor, Rafael Palmeiro, and Barry Bonds.

Who needs the draft when you can sign mediocre free agent pitchers instead!

LOL! Another vote for keeping Mike Porzio on the team!

Genius idea. World Series here we come!!!

:)

hose
02-05-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm not sure what the debate over Rogers can possibly be. If Rogers is acquired AS A FREE AGENT, he costs Sox Fans nothing but the money JR spends on him. Supporting this free agent acquisition ought to be a no brainer. Let me explain.

We can debate whether Rogers is better than Wright or Rauch as the #4 or #5 starter on the team. However, there is NO DEBATE Rogers is far better than the WORST pitcher currently on the Sox pitching staff. If the Sox sign Rogers, guys like Mike Porzio (or Kevin Beirne or Alan Embree before him) are suddenly without a job. This is a GOOD thing, and there can't be any debate about it.

It's a specious argument to suggest (as others have) that acquiring free agent Rogers blocks the path of young pitchers like Rauch. B.S. This is a PITCHING STAFF we're talking about. There is plenty of work for EVERYBODY who pitches well. Rauch will get precisely the amount of work that he shows the ability to handle. If he pitches great, he sticks in the rotation. If he struggles, it's off to the bullpen for spot starts and long relief. If he can't handle that job, it's back to Charlotte. Rauch's REAL ABILITY is the deciding factor. What beef could any of us possibly have with that?

It's stupid to suggest a manager wouldn't use his BEST pitchers, unless of course you think the manager is incompetent. In that case, don't be against acquiring free agent Rogers. Instead, you should be against Jerry Manuel keeping his job as manager. Not acquiring Rogers solves nothing.

Please note--I am NOT in favor of the Sox TRADING for an aging veteran pitcher. The upside to any trade is far more limited than a free agent signing. The real beauty of the Bartolo Colon trade was how little we gave up to get him. It's not practical to expect other pitchers (like Reed in Philadelphia) will come to us so cheap.

Joe Crede's progress at 3B was blocked because he was a position player and only one player can play everyday. Pitching is a whole different ballgame. I'm surprised so many of you fail to notice the difference.

Stated more simply: You can never have enough pitching.

Nuff said.


I agree with you PHG, can't get enough pitching and Kenny is a southpaw to boot.

Rogers should come very cheap, his agent BorASS really mis-judged the market turning down a $10 million offer from Texas.

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Yeah losing what will likely turn out to become a career minor leaguer will be a crushing blow...

i didn't say we were giving up an all-star necessarily but i completely fail to see how a first round draft pick is worthless. player developement is important and first round picks have by far the highest success rate. kip wells, jon garland, frank, borchard, rowand, mark johnson, dan wright clearly first round picks haven't been worthless for us in a lot of cases.

MarkEdward
02-05-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
LOL! Another vote for keeping Mike Porzio on the team!

Genius idea. World Series here we come!!!



Porzio won't make the team even if Rogers isn't signed.

NewyorkSoxFan
02-05-2003, 08:51 PM
PHG, great point. I have been arguing this point all day. Pitching and defense wins championships. Veteran pitching mixed with young good arms is a good combination.

No one is expecting cy young, but he is a crafty (unlike Parque) lefthander who knows how to pitch. Here the Yankees have 7 potential starters, but they realize at some point you will need all of them to step up to help the staff.


NYSF

P.S. My god please no PORZIO!!!

kruzer31
02-05-2003, 08:57 PM
The original poster made reference to Alan Embree being somewhat of a "bum" and taking up space on a roster. Well, I dont know if it is the White Sox scouts or what but this guy is now the Red Sox closer and is throwing 97-99mph for a lefty. We also traded a guy named Josh Fogg who went to be a starter for the Pirates and won 12 games as a rookie. THEY NEVER EVEN GAVE FOGG A CHANCE TO BE A STARTER, WHAT WERE WE THINKING? Who are our scouts and why did they miss out on these two guys?

jeff

duke of dorwood
02-05-2003, 09:02 PM
Been thinking a lot about this . I'm a big Rauch fan, but with Colon likely here only 1 year (hear that U S CELLULAR ?), we should load up this year .

lowesox
02-05-2003, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
also, the money jr spends doesn't affect the fans a great deal but there are certainly ramifications. we still have a budget and signing rogers could elimnate money we might want later to sign a different player or acquire a player with a substantial salary in a trade.

I couldn't agree more. The people posting that the Sox should sign Rogers are the same people who couldn't understand why the Sox didn't get Millwood. Why are some fans so oblivious to the financial side of this game?

Yes, Rogers will probably put up better numbers than Rauch or Loaiza. But I believe that the the Sox are already good enough to win the central. And when they're looking for that final 'puzzle piece' at the deadline, I'll be glad that they have that 2 million in their back pockets. Because chances are, the player the go after then will be far more valuable then Rauch and Rogers.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-05-2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Porzio won't make the team even if Rogers isn't signed.

Great. Then you agree the WORST pitcher on the Sox ought to shove off? That's my point. Only one pitcher is on the mound at any given moment, and the Sox will carry only 12 of them at the most.

Rogers is better than ANYBODY who gets knocked off the team.

Glad you're finally on board.

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Great. Then you agree the WORST pitcher on the Sox ought to shove off? That's my point. Only one pitcher is on the mound at any given moment, and the Sox will carry only 12 of them at the most.

Rogers is better than ANYBODY who gets knocked off the team.

Glad you're finally on board.
\
PHG this is so obvious, i dont even know why there is a debate. I guess some of the guys would prefer not to improve our team. :?:

jeremyb1
02-05-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
I couldn't agree more. The people posting that the Sox should sign Rogers are the same people who couldn't understand why the Sox didn't get Millwood. Why are some fans so oblivious to the financial side of this game?

Yes, Rogers will probably put up better numbers than Rauch or Loaiza. But I believe that the the Sox are already good enough to win the central. And when they're looking for that final 'puzzle piece' at the deadline, I'll be glad that they have that 2 million in their back pockets. Because chances are, the player the go after then will be far more valuable then Rauch and Rogers.

well i agree with all of that except for your millwood example. millwood settled for about 10 million i believe which is more or less the same as what colon is making and he's arguably better than colon. we certainly didn't know we'd be able to and colon at the time so i see no reason not to have dealt for millwood.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-05-2003, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
Why are some fans so oblivious to the financial side of this game?

If we're oblivious, it's probably because we haven't benefited from hearing an enlightened discussion on the subject from the likes of you. So please, without further ado, explain why getting rid of the WORST pitcher on the Sox pitching staff will lead to financial disaster--if not an improved staff.

We're waiting.

Yes, Rogers will probably put up better numbers than Rauch or Loaiza. But I believe that the the Sox are already good enough to win the central. And when they're looking for that final 'puzzle piece' at the deadline, I'll be glad that they have that 2 million in their back pockets. Because chances are, the player the go after then will be far more valuable then Rauch and Rogers.

I'm supposing you're excited at the prospect of winning the Central Division? Should we look for your face amongst the wild mob that turns over the cab on Rush Street after the big clinching game next September? I'm guessing that party ought to be sparsely attended. Your chances of escaping the Chicago Police are not good.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
problem is that if kenny rogers signs he's going to be in the rotation. you just don't stretch your budget to sign a veteran starter coming off of a good season and then put him in the pen because another guy is pitching better. if we give rogers serious money he will be in the rotation. even if he struggles he'll be given a lot of opportunities as ritchie was last season before finally being shut down.

something like signing loaiza and herdia to minor league deals is risk free because as guys that couldn't get major league deals they'd be agreeable to pitching in the pen since their other options most likely don't involve pitching in the majors. also, if they don't make the team we don't have to pay them. if we sign someone like rogers we don't have the option of just tossing him aside.

also, the money jr spends doesn't affect the fans a great deal but there are certainly ramifications. we still have a budget and signing rogers could elimnate money we might want later to sign a different player or acquire a player with a substantial salary in a trade.


A
M
E
N

Randar68
02-05-2003, 10:01 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm supposing you're excited at the prospect of winning the Central Division? Should we look for your face amongst the wild mob that turns over the cab on Rush Street after the big clinching game next September? I'm guessing that party ought to be sparsely attended. Your chances of escaping the Chicago Police are not good.


Sorry George, but you are a buffoon if you think a 38/39 year old Kenny Rogers is the winning piece missing from our World Series Puzzle...

How about an experienced catcher who isn't being held together by strings and stitches.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-05-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Sorry George, but you are a buffoon if you think a 38/39 year old Kenny Rogers is the winning piece missing from our World Series Puzzle...

How about an experienced catcher who isn't being held together by strings and stitches.

Sorry Randar, you're a bigger buffoon if you think somebody like Mike Porzio is a winning piece of any team with championship aspirations this side of Milwaukee.

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Sorry Randar, you're a bigger buffoon if you think somebody like Mike Porzio is a winning piece of any team with championship aspirations this side of Milwaukee.

*****

Randar68
02-05-2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Sorry Randar, you're a bigger buffoon if you think somebody like Mike Porzio is a winning piece of any team with championship aspirations this side of Milwaukee.

With the recent Bullpen signings and Arnaldo Munoz's performance this winter, do you honestly think Mike Porzio has any kind of chance to be on the opening day roster????

Is he better than some of the guys on the 40 man roster? Unquestionably...

Are you willing to sit the future down for a guy who'll likely be no better as a starter?

Not if it we reached absolute zero in Hell.


Rogers WILL NOT SIGN TO SIT IN THE PEN...

Did you see how they handled Ritchie last year even after he was hopeless out on the mound???? DO you want to see that again with an over-the-hill Rogers???? I sure don't.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 10:09 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Sorry Randar, you're a bigger buffoon if you think somebody like Mike Porzio is a winning piece of any team with championship aspirations this side of Milwaukee.


BTW way, class act getting worked up and taking the situation out of context....

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
BTW way, class act getting worked up and taking the situation out of context....

Yeah, if he could only keep his composure, like you.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-05-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
With the recent Bullpen signings and Arnaldo Munoz's performance this winter, do you honestly think Mike Porzio has any kind of chance to be on the opening day roster????

Is he better than some of the guys on the 40 man roster? Unquestionably...

Are you willing to sit the future down for a guy who'll likely be no better as a starter?

Not if it we reached absolute zero in Hell.


Rogers WILL NOT SIGN TO SIT IN THE PEN...

Did you see how they handled Ritchie last year even after he was hopeless out on the mound???? DO you want to see that again with an over-the-hill Rogers???? I sure don't.


I don't believe anybody in the Sox organization has any clue how well Jon Rauch might pitch next season. Perhaps they ought to hire you. Adding Rogers as a free agent gives them flexibility to use Rauch as he DEMONSTRATES his ability next season. His role as starter, spot starter, long reliever, or AAA pitcher depends on how he ACTUALLY pitches compared to others. What's wrong with that?

Wright is hardly a shoo-in for the rotation either. It's not like Rauch loses his spot automatically. As for Ritchie last year, he was HURT. He landed on the DL, remember? If Rogers lands in Chicago, you better believe it was his last resort. He'll do as he is told. I don't see any parallel to Ritchie's situation at all.

At least we agree adding Rogers improves the pitching staff, and that has been my sole point from the very start. There is room enough for EVERYBODY who pitches well.

Joel Perez
02-05-2003, 10:19 PM
Signing Kenny Rogers to teach young guns like Johnny Rauch to pitch???

Why don't we use the "Rocky Biddle" method for Rauch, like let him build up his arm strength in the pen this year until he does, then in '04 turn him loose in the rotation?

Only, don't end up trading Rauch to the 'Spos. :D:

What about this idea?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-05-2003, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
BTW way, class act getting worked up and taking the situation out of context....

That's very funny coming from you, Randar. I deliberately structured my sentence PRECISELY the same as the "classy" way you directed yourself to me.

The irony of your post is beyond belief.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
That's very funny coming from you, Randar. I deliberately structured my sentence PRECISELY the same as the "classy" way you directed yourself to me.

The irony of your post is beyond belief.


I'm done with this, Mr. Moderator. You are easily baited. BTW, I usually don't do it, but I'll be the first back here to run your face in Kenny Rogers Gambling his arm away in a terrible season WHEN it happens...

Good luck counting on Rogers to carry you to a W.S. George... *****!

Boy, I think I may have some swamp land in Florida sitting around....

PaleHoseGeorge
02-05-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm done with this, Mr. Moderator. You are easily baited. BTW, I usually don't do it, but I'll be the first back here to run your face in Kenny Rogers Gambling his arm away in a terrible season WHEN it happens...

Good luck counting on Rogers to carry you to a W.S. George... *****!

Boy, I think I may have some swamp land in Florida sitting around....

Oh, no!

:)

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm done with this, Mr. Moderator. You are easily baited. BTW, I usually don't do it, but I'll be the first back here to run your face in Kenny Rogers Gambling his arm away in a terrible season WHEN it happens...

Good luck counting on Rogers to carry you to a W.S. George... *****!

Boy, I think I may have some swamp land in Florida sitting around....

It must suck being so unhappy.....

Jjav829
02-05-2003, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
It must suck being so unhappy.....

That's what happens when you know everything

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 10:32 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
That's what happens when you know everything

Well i cant speak for all areas of his life, but he doesnt know a whole lot about baseball. He is so obsessed with the minor leagues, that he doesnt see much else. Older players do have value.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Well i cant speak for all areas of his life, but he doesnt know a whole lot about baseball. He is so obsessed with the minor leagues, that he doesnt see much else. Older players do have value.

To Springfield Retirement Home only...

I am a perfectly happy guy. I haven't gotten personal with any of you (save maybe borderline with George), but if you want to cross that line, go right ahead...

I see value in developing talent in positions where they have an opportunity to exceed and learn. I do not think there is value in throwing away the future for a pitcher like Kenny Rogers who will get you nothing in the long run...


I'm still waiting to see a 2004 rotation here. You geniuses have Rogers and Colon in there, but they will be gone after this season. Where does that leave us then?

Reality is somewhere inbetween what we are both saying, but let me get this straight...

You would prefer to add Rogers to our rotation than allow Jon the opportunity to develop in a positive situation, rather than making him the #4 behind Mark, Jon, and Danny next year?

Randar68
02-05-2003, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Well i cant speak for all areas of his life, but he doesnt know a whole lot about baseball.

*****! I guess i just don't 'watch' carefully enough to notice how obvious it all is to you...especially with your keen hindsight...

CHISOXFAN13
02-05-2003, 10:55 PM
So you'll be back here laughing at all of us when/if Rogers' arm falls off. Will you also be back if a. he pitches well or b. Rauch doesn't have it yet???

I really hope Rauch is ready to go, but we, as fans, have never beein in a situation with this club where we are actively trying to improve the team daily.

I'm sorry you don't feel this way, but dammit, it's refreshing.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
So you'll be back here laughing at all of us when/if Rogers' arm falls off. Will you also be back if a. he pitches well or b. Rauch doesn't have it yet???

You bet. I have 1800+ posts I think and have been here since the site's inception. I wouldn't disappear because I was wrong about something.

Rogers is a risk, and IMO, he's a bigger risk than anyone we have as a current option and the opportunity cost of adding Rogers is not worth it. Others think it is.

I have been wrong before.

Bmr31
02-05-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
You bet. I have 1800+ posts I think and have been here since the site's inception. I wouldn't disappear because I was wrong about something.

Rogers is a risk, and IMO, he's a bigger risk than anyone we have as a current option and the opportunity cost of adding Rogers is not worth it. Others think it is.

I have been wrong before.

The point is hardly worth debating. Either way, Rogers or Rauch, isnt going to make a huge difference.

CHISOXFAN13
02-05-2003, 11:02 PM
Hey, I'm glad you feel that way. I enjoy reading your posts and appreciate your passion even if I don't agree with evrything you say. All of us are clearly fired up to go as evidenced by the competitive nature of the posts today.

cornball
02-05-2003, 11:04 PM
George, I agree with you. Plus if we could sign him for cheap it would be worth it to piss off Boras.

OfficerKarkovice
02-05-2003, 11:15 PM
I've got to agree with Randar on this one. Signing Rogers would be a huge mistake. Rauch is ready, and he is ready now. All you guys did was bitch and bitch when Crede was kept down in the minors while other veterans not in the Sox future plans played 3B...now you want to do the exact same thing with Rauch. If for some reason Rauch can't get it done, or someone gets injured, etc...we have two extremely viable candidates in Loiza and Heredia who can take over for the time being. Rauch needs to be here and the #5 spot in the rotation is the perfect place for him.

Dub25
02-05-2003, 11:16 PM
I couldn't agree more. Rogers would be a solid addition to the starting rotation. His expierence could help the development of not only Rauch but also Garland and Wright. Rogers also brings more playoff expierence to the rotation. He may not be one of the best pitchers out there but does anyone remember the veteran leadership that Cal Eldred brought to the 2000 rotation? As long as Kenny doesn't pay to much for Rogers this could be another big piece to a solid season.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by Dub25
He may not be one of the best pitchers out there but does anyone remember the veteran leadership that Cal Eldred brought to the 2000 rotation? As long as Kenny doesn't pay to much for Rogers this could be another big piece to a solid season.

I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time remembering... was it similar to the kind of leadership Navarro and Ritchie have provided??? :D:

Lip Man 1
02-05-2003, 11:20 PM
Lowesox says:

And when they're looking for that final 'puzzle piece' at the deadline, I'll be glad that they have that 2 million in their back pockets. Because chances are, the player the go after then will be far more valuable then Rauch and Rogers.

There is some truth there but that has to be weighed against the fact that at the trading deadline the price of getting quality players or even average players goes way, WAY up.

Better to strike now when the price of poker isn't so high (or do you think the Sox will outbid other teams like the Red Sox?)

-----------------------

also to those who are arguing that the Sox have enough right now remember this famous quote last year when Glover was getting ripped apart and the media was wondering why he was still in the rotation..."we really don't have any other options right now."---Manager Gandhi.

Just something to consider.

Lip

fuzzy_patters
02-05-2003, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time remembering... was it similar to the kind of leadership Navarro and Ritchie have provided??? :D:

What kind of success will a rookie bring to being the fifth starter? I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time remembering...was it similar to the kind of success Scott Ruffcorn and James Baldwin provided?

voodoochile
02-05-2003, 11:25 PM
I have stayed out of this discussion so as to read and learn from what other people are saying. I think both both sides make excellent cases and I think the best point was made by Randar who said

Reality is somewhere in between what we are both saying

Having said all of that, I would be for signing Rogers at the right price. I am not convinced that Wright and Garland are both going to improve and Rauch is going to become a stud this quickly. I think having a guy like Rogers on the team makes it much easier on Manuel if one of the other guys falters and like it or not, this discussion is NOT just about Rogers or Rauch, because none of the 3 kids has proven themselves to be a MLB ready starter to date. Yes, Garland and Wright both made strides last year, but there is no guarantee they will both continue to steadily improve. Young pitchers tend to be up and down and having a veteran alternative would be a good thing.

Make it clear to Roger going into the contract negotiations that he has to earn the 5th slot if he is going to start. If he doesn't like that fact then he can take his chances elsewhere. In the end, gaining depth and experience on the pitching staff as the Sox enter what could be a pennant contending year and only giving up money to do it is something we Sox fans have wanted to see this team do for a long long time. How could we complain now if the team finally listened?

Dub25
02-05-2003, 11:37 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
I'm sorry, I'm having a hard time remembering... was it similar to the kind of leadership Navarro and Ritchie have provided??? :D:

If you remember Eldred was 10-2 at the all star break and then his elbow fell apart. The 2nd half of the season the Sox played 500 ball and kind of stumbled into the playoffs with not a lot of momemtum. Was Eldred the main reason they got off to a fast start? No but he wasn't expected to do a whole lot either. As for the worst pitcher ever to put a sox uniform Navarro he was an idiot that Schu thought was better than the Rocket and Ritchie just plain sucked.

Randar68
02-05-2003, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Dub25
If you remember Eldred was 10-2 at the all star break and then his elbow fell apart. The 2nd half of the season the Sox played 500 ball and kind of stumbled into the playoffs with not a lot of momemtum. Was Eldred the main reason they got off to a fast start? No but he wasn't expected to do a whole lot either. As for the worst pitcher ever to put a sox uniform Navarro he was an idiot that Schu thought was better than the Rocket and Ritchie just plain sucked.

Sorry, I think you missed this new invention... sarcasm...

MarkEdward
02-05-2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
[B]Great. Then you agree the WORST pitcher on the Sox ought to shove off?

I stated that he won't make the team even if Rogers isn't signed. To make myself clearer: Mike Porzio will not take Kenny Rogers' spot on the roster. Rogers would be taking Jon Rauch's.

Pitchers ahead of Porzio to make the 2003 roster: Ginter, Malone, Munoz, Stewart, Almonte, Adkins, Sanders, and Stewart.

To conclude- yes, I would take Rogers over Porzio. However, I believe we have better options in this organization, so we don't need to sign Rogers in order to be successful. Also, I believe it's stupid to give up a first round pick just to pick up a fifth starter.

P.S. Bloom blows. Marian Catholic rules it.
Bloom= where they send the kids that just can't make it at Homewood Flossmoor. :)

Randar68
02-05-2003, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I have stayed out of this discussion so as to read and learn from what other people are saying. I think both both sides make excellent cases and I think the best point was made by Randar who said



Having said all of that, I would be for signing Rogers at the right price. I am not convinced that Wright and Garland are both going to improve and Rauch is going to become a stud this quickly. I think having a guy like Rogers on the team makes it much easier on Manuel if one of the other guys falters and like it or not, this discussion is NOT just about Rogers or Rauch, because none of the 3 kids has proven themselves to be a MLB ready starter to date. Yes, Garland and Wright both made strides last year, but there is no guarantee they will both continue to steadily improve. Young pitchers tend to be up and down and having a veteran alternative would be a good thing.

Make it clear to Roger going into the contract negotiations that he has to earn the 5th slot if he is going to start. If he doesn't like that fact then he can take his chances elsewhere. In the end, gaining depth and experience on the pitching staff as the Sox enter what could be a pennant contending year and only giving up money to do it is something we Sox fans have wanted to see this team do for a long long time. How could we complain now if the team finally listened?

I agree to some extent. However, I think you have a dillemma.
1) I don't think Rogers would agree to that.
2) I think KW would cave and all but guarantee the 5 spot...
3) How do you know which one of Garland/Wright/Rauch to replace??? It's Russian Roulette...

Bmr31
02-06-2003, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
I agree to some extent. However, I think you have a dillemma.
1) I don't think Rogers would agree to that.
2) I think KW would cave and all but guarantee the 5 spot...
3) How do you know which one of Garland/Wright/Rauch to replace??? It's Russian Roulette...

You replace the one who sucks in 2003, which is a virtual guarantee. If Garland, Wright, and Rauch all have good seasons, start printing world series tickets, if they dont, you have a veteran presence in Rogers. Keep in mind, in the AL, a 4.5 era out of your 5th starter would be excellent.

jeremyb1
02-06-2003, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
So you'll be back here laughing at all of us when/if Rogers' arm falls off. Will you also be back if a. he pitches well or b. Rauch doesn't have it yet???

I really hope Rauch is ready to go, but we, as fans, have never beein in a situation with this club where we are actively trying to improve the team daily.

I'm sorry you don't feel this way, but dammit, it's refreshing.

i'll tell you right now that rauch will not end up with an unsightly era (6 or over) and that rogers will not repeat last season by any means and i'm not going anywhere.

gogosoxgogo
02-06-2003, 07:24 AM
come on, what's wrong with you all? Take the best damn pitcher possible. If that's Rogers, fine, plug him into the #5 role. If Rauch performs better, say screw you Rogers, I don't care how old you are and what you've done in the past, you aren't the best choice for our situation. What's wrong with depth and competition within a pitching staff? If anyone went to any of the 1983 revisted seminars at Soxfest, all Hawk and others could talk about was the competition between Dot and Hoyt among others in the pitching staff, and how well it worked for them. Well, go look up the results there (2 Cy Young Candidates).

IMO, if we sign Rogers, he would take the #5 role, and depending on the type of spring Rauch had, he would take the long relief and spot start role. If Wright or Garland struggled, he'd take over their role. We need a long reliever in our bullpen. Yes, Glover COULD do it, but just because he can, doesn't mean he should. We all know how effective he is in the setup role.

So my closing words: The best pitcher possible should be the one we take north.

progers0826
02-06-2003, 08:47 AM
Wow. You guys get worked up. Just wanted to make a quick clarification. There is no draft choice compensation for Rogers. I totally agree that it's one thing to sign a free agent when you don't give up a draft chance and a whole different thing when you do give up a high pick. Those picks have tremendous value. That's where you get your star players.

Otherwise my two cents: Rauch has been lightly pitched, entering this season with fewer than 400 pro innings. Andy Pettitte -- the first established starter who came to my mind -- had almost 600 minor-league innings. It wouldn't be the worst thing for Rauch to repeat Triple-A, where he's made 25 starts. But, as you guys know, something almost always happens to pitchers. If he started the season with five ahead of him -- and pitching every turn in the minors, not hanging around as a swingman -- how long would it be before he was needed?

maurice
02-06-2003, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
also to those who are arguing that the Sox have enough right now remember this famous quote last year when Glover was getting ripped apart and the media was wondering why he was still in the rotation..."we really don't have any other options right now."---Manager Gandhi.

Lip is right. We should all remember that JM is dumb. He made this statement, notwithstanding the fact that he could simply swap Glover for Biddle, something he successfully did towards the end of the season.

The lesson to be learned is that, if the Sox sign Rogers (Kenny not Phil), they will hand him a spot in the rotation at the end of spring training (no matter how badly he performs) at the expense of Rauch (no matter how well he performs). We've seen this before: Rogers = Clayton; Rauch = Crede.

Like I said in the other thread, I am in favor of signing Rogers only if he agrees to pitch out of the pen until a starter gets injured or pitches poorly after a reasonable opportunity to succeed. I doubt he would agree to this on top of the massive paycut he is certain to experience.

ma-gaga
02-06-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
As for Ritchie last year, he was HURT. He landed on the DL, remember?

I thought that Ritchie went on the DL to save himself from being a 20 game loser. I'm curious as to how you saw it;

Do you REALLY think he was injured?

voodoochile
02-06-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
I agree to some extent. However, I think you have a dillemma.
1) I don't think Rogers would agree to that.
2) I think KW would cave and all but guarantee the 5 spot...
3) How do you know which one of Garland/Wright/Rauch to replace??? It's Russian Roulette...

They can't know until they try. Rogers options are shrinking and he may just accept the chance to play for any team - especially one that has post-season possiblities like the Sox do. Besides if they offer him a legitimate shot at the 5th slot, he may figure he can beat out at least one of the 3 young kids and take his chances. Like Bmr said, you replace the kid that isn't performing and put them in the bullpen for a while to let them get their head together. Maybe they will be needed later in the season if another of the kids has a slump. If not, then the Sox have excellent trade bait if nothing else...

dougs78
02-06-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by maurice

Like I said in the other thread, I am in favor of signing Rogers only if he agrees to pitch out of the pen until a starter gets injured or pitches poorly after a reasonable opportunity to succeed. I doubt he would agree to this on top of the massive paycut he is certain to experience. [/B]

These are my thoughts as well. I think the only real difference of opinion by the two camps on this heated, heated debate are the assumptions they are each making.

Those assumptions are:

1. PHG, et al. are assuming that Rogers will not be treated differently than any other pitcher. That is to say that he would be just as likely to have a Porzio role as he would a Ritchie role. So that where and when Rogers pitches will be decided strtictly on merit and performance, as opposed to other factors.

2. Randar et al. are assuming that Rogers WILL be treated differently than a Ginter/Porzio/Wunsch. They are assuming that Rogers will be given a chances to start until he absolutely proves otherwise.

There are others, including the anticipated performance by Rogers, but I think these are the most important parts of this argument. Really, whichever assumption of these two you make probably decides where you come down on this issue.

Another important point that I have not seen clarified here (or at least not fully validated) is the question as to whether we would have to give up a draft pick and whether this would hamper our ability to go out and get another deal done if the need so arose.

maurice
02-06-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
3) How do you know which one of Garland/Wright/Rauch to replace??? It's Russian Roulette...

Originally posted by voodoochile
They can't know until they try. . . . you replace the kid that isn't performing . . . .

Performing where? Pitching three innings in Arizona's light air or starting in real games?

I want to see Garland, Wright, and Rauch receive a legitimate chance as starters during the first half of 2003. If one drops the ball, I have no problem replacing him with Rogers or whoever. OTOH, given a legitimate chance, all three have the potential to post significantly better numbers in 2003 than anyone else the Sox have or can acquire at this point.

If Rogers won't agree to start the season in the pen, he's a bad pickup.

Iwritecode
02-06-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
I thought that Ritchie went on the DL to save himself from being a 20 game loser. I'm curious as to how you saw it;

Do you REALLY think he was injured?

There was something about Ritchie's motion that caused his shoulder to get sore. Even one of our radio broadcast guys noticed it. (before our ex-pitching coach I might add)

If you look at his stats he really didn't pitch all that bad at the beginning of the season. He just wasn't getting any run support. Then somehow his mechanics got thrown off, he hurt his shoulder and the rest is history...

MarkEdward
02-06-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward

P.S. Bloom blows. Marian Catholic rules it.
Bloom= where they send the kids that just can't make it at Homewood Flossmoor. :)

By the way, this wasn't a flame at PHG, even though it might have looked like it was. I was driving around Bloom yesterday with a few people when I was dangerously cut-off by someone pulling out of the Bloom parking lot. I was just letting off some steam with that jab.

voodoochile
02-06-2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Performing where? Pitching three innings in Arizona's light air or starting in real games?

I want to see Garland, Wright, and Rauch receive a legitimate chance as starters during the first half of 2003. If one drops the ball, I have no problem replacing him with Rogers or whoever. OTOH, given a legitimate chance, all three have the potential to post significantly better numbers in 2003 than anyone else the Sox have or can acquire at this point.

If Rogers won't agree to start the season in the pen, he's a bad pickup.

Yeah, I remember how last year all those ST problems for Rauch, Parque and the bullpen turned out to be that "light Arizona air". Honestly, I would take into account the ST production of these three. Assuming they will be fine during the regular season when they don't perform in the pre-season is asking for trouble, IMO. If the Sox truly are going to make a run at a pennant and beyond this season then they cannot afford to be blowing off April games to develop pitchers for 2004 when Colon is (theoretically) no longer on the team.

maurice
02-06-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Honestly, I would take into account the ST production of these three. Assuming they will be fine during the regular season when they don't perform in the pre-season is asking for trouble, IMO.

IIRC, the entire Sox staff got destroyed last spring, while the offense regularly lit up the opposition (including Schilling more than once). When asked about the discrepancy between the spring numbers and the regular season numbers, the unanimous answer was "breaking balls don't break in Arizona." That's why I wouldn't deny Garland/Wright/Rauch a spot in the rotation just because they produce bad numbers pitching 3 inning stints in spring training.

If the Sox truly are going to make a run at a pennant and beyond this season then they cannot afford to be blowing off April games

The point is not that the Sox should "blow off" April games. The point I made in my previous post (and the point I think Randar was trying to make) is that at least one (and perhaps all three) of Garland/Wright/Rauch probably will outpitch Rogers in 2003. Since you don't know which ones will be successful, it would be a mistake to take any one of them out of the rotation until they prove that they can't get the job done. IMHO, barring a Parquesque collapse, that requires at least five regular season starts. Only then should the Sox insert Rogers (or whoever your "#6" starter is) into the rotation.

Also, keep in mind that the #5 starter will not get regular starts until well into the season, and as a result Rauch probably will spend some time in AAA even if they don't sign Rogers.

voodoochile
02-06-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by maurice
IIRC, the entire Sox staff got destroyed last spring, while the offense regularly lit up the opposition (including Schilling more than once). When asked about the discrepancy between the spring numbers and the regular season numbers, the unanimous answer was "breaking balls don't break in Arizona." That's why I wouldn't deny Garland/Wright/Rauch a spot in the rotation just because they produce bad numbers pitching 3 inning stints in spring training.

Yeah, and two of the biggest culprits last spring were Parque and Rauch and when the season started they picked up where they left off in ST and continued to get lit up. That is why I would be hesitent to allow guys who get lit up in ST to continue to start in the regular season. I know the Sox can't replace all 3 should they start out slowly, but if one of them is struggling badly coming out of ST or if one of them struggles badly to start the year (first 3-4 starts at most) then the Sox would be smart to give them a chance to work on their pitches in the bullpen while giving those same starts to Rogers or someone else (after all they just signed 3 potential starters to Minor League contracts, so there is no shortage of potential starters on this team).

Tragg
02-06-2003, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by maurice




The point is not that the Sox should "blow off" April games. The point I made in my previous post (and the point I think Randar was trying to make) is that at least one (and perhaps all three) of Garland/Wright/Rauch probably will outpitch Rogers in 2003. Since you don't know which ones will be successful, it would be a mistake to take any one of them out of the rotation until they prove that they can't get the job done. IMHO, barring a Parquesque collapse, that requires at least five regular season starts. Only then should the Sox insert Rogers (or whoever your "#6" starter is) into the rotation.

Also, keep in mind that the #5 starter will not get regular starts until well into the season, and as a result Rauch probably will spend some time in AAA even if they don't sign Rogers.

I agree, Maurice. Makes sense. Rogers is an okay pitcher, and should take the place of someone who is not doing okay, and nothing more.
Just one thing - parque didn't start the season - his first appearance was out of the pen in a clutch situation at California (maybe oakland), which he completely blew. I believe that was also the series in which a)manuel refused to pinch hit for royce clayton in the 9th and b)he pitched around someone to pitch to Troy Glaus in either the 9th or extra innings, with the predictable result.

Procol Harum
02-07-2003, 10:25 AM
I'd like the idea of Rogers but the asking price is pretty stiff. Besides there's one other element at work here: Kenny Rogers + Scott Boras = Jerry Reinsdorf no likee. Perhaps once we're 2 weeks into spring training and Rogers still isn't signed, Reinsdorf might consider signing him for something like 2-2.5 mill if Boras stands barefoot in the snow outside U.S. Cellular Field for two days....

PaleHoseGeorge
02-07-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by OfficerKarkovice
I've got to agree with Randar on this one. Signing Rogers would be a huge mistake. Rauch is ready, and he is ready now. All you guys did was bitch and bitch when Crede was kept down in the minors while other veterans not in the Sox future plans played 3B...now you want to do the exact same thing with Rauch. If for some reason Rauch can't get it done, or someone gets injured, etc...we have two extremely viable candidates in Loiza and Heredia who can take over for the time being. Rauch needs to be here and the #5 spot in the rotation is the perfect place for him.

Nope. Go back to the very first post in this thread.

Joe Crede's progress at 3B was blocked because he was a position player and only one player can play everyday. Pitching is a whole different ballgame. I'm surprised so many of you fail to notice the difference.

Besides that, you contradicted yourself, too. You make the case for added depth (Loiza and Heredia) but still DON'T want Rogers for the same reason?

The "perfect place" for Rauch will depend on how he pitches March through September, not your best guess in February. Acquiring Rogers has nothing to do with it.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-07-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I have stayed out of this discussion so as to read and learn from what other people are saying. I think both both sides make excellent cases and I think the best point was made by Randar who said



Having said all of that, I would be for signing Rogers at the right price. I am not convinced that Wright and Garland are both going to improve and Rauch is going to become a stud this quickly. I think having a guy like Rogers on the team makes it much easier on Manuel if one of the other guys falters and like it or not, this discussion is NOT just about Rogers or Rauch, because none of the 3 kids has proven themselves to be a MLB ready starter to date. Yes, Garland and Wright both made strides last year, but there is no guarantee they will both continue to steadily improve. Young pitchers tend to be up and down and having a veteran alternative would be a good thing.

Make it clear to Roger going into the contract negotiations that he has to earn the 5th slot if he is going to start. If he doesn't like that fact then he can take his chances elsewhere. In the end, gaining depth and experience on the pitching staff as the Sox enter what could be a pennant contending year and only giving up money to do it is something we Sox fans have wanted to see this team do for a long long time. How could we complain now if the team finally listened?

This sounds like a big long excuse for management incompetence. If Manuel (and/or Williams) haven't got the stones to tell a player where, when and how he plays for their team, they are too incompetent to hold their spots in the clubhouse and the front office.

The inmates do not run the asylum. Acquiring Rogers improves our pitching staff. Nuff said.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-07-2003, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
I stated that he won't make the team even if Rogers isn't signed. To make myself clearer: Mike Porzio will not take Kenny Rogers' spot on the roster. Rogers would be taking Jon Rauch's.

Pitchers ahead of Porzio to make the 2003 roster: Ginter, Malone, Munoz, Stewart, Almonte, Adkins, Sanders, and Stewart.

To conclude- yes, I would take Rogers over Porzio. However, I believe we have better options in this organization, so we don't need to sign Rogers in order to be successful. Also, I believe it's stupid to give up a first round pick just to pick up a fifth starter.

P.S. Bloom blows. Marian Catholic rules it.
Bloom= where they send the kids that just can't make it at Homewood Flossmoor.

<WHOOSH!!!>

That was my point sailing right over your head. Let's try this again, more slowly for the H-F graduate.

Name the WORST Sox pitcher on the Sox staff. Take your time... we'll wait... need more time? ... okay? ... (here's a hint: it doesn't make any difference who you pick) ... okay, done?

"The WORST Sox pitcher on the Sox staff is <insert Mark's guy here>."

Now I retort.

"Mark, acquiring Rogers makes the Sox a more viable championship contender because <insert Mark's guy here> is clearly an inferior pitcher to Rogers. Thus by acquiring Rogers, there is one less spot left on the Sox roster and <insert Mark's guy here> is left without a job. Jon Rauch will pitch PRECISELY the amount that his ACTUAL PERFORMANCE permits him. Clearly he is not worse than <insert Mark's guy here>. This is a pitching staff we're talking about and everybody who pitches well will get plenty of work."

Don't fret too much. I'm sure Milwaukee can use <insert Mark's guy here>.

If there are any teachers from H-F reading this, they ought to be hanging their heads in shame.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-07-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
These are my thoughts as well. I think the only real difference of opinion by the two camps on this heated, heated debate are the assumptions they are each making.

Those assumptions are:

1. PHG, et al. are assuming that Rogers will not be treated differently than any other pitcher. That is to say that he would be just as likely to have a Porzio role as he would a Ritchie role. So that where and when Rogers pitches will be decided strtictly on merit and performance, as opposed to other factors....


Anyone who would make an assumption DIFFERENT from this is basically making an excuse for the incompetence of Sox management. They're saying Manuel and Williams can't be trusted to make the BEST personnel decisions. They think Sox management will put its wallet ahead of fielding the best team possible.

Maybe they're right, but so what? It has NOTHING to do with acquiring Rogers. If management is too dumb to field the strongest team possible, it makes no difference who we acquire! The point is moot.

The basis of their point is nothing but an indictment of Sox management. I'll be happy to debate this separately, but it has NOTHING to do with getting Rogers to improve our pitching staff.

voodoochile
02-07-2003, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
This sounds like a big long excuse for management incompetence. If Manuel (and/or Williams) haven't got the stones to tell a player where, when and how he plays for their team, they are too incompetent to hold their spots in the clubhouse and the front office.

The inmates do not run the asylum. Acquiring Rogers improves our pitching staff. Nuff said.

I agree, but I think it is best to be upfront with the guy before they sign him that is all. I get tired of the double dealing. You want the best performance and best attitude from any employee, you tell them what is what before you put them in the job, IMO...

Bmr31
02-07-2003, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I agree, but I think it is best to be upfront with the guy before they sign him that is all. I get tired of the double dealing. You want the best performance and best attitude from any employee, you tell them what is what before you put them in the job, IMO...

You cant make any promises to employees. You tell them what your current plan is, and you also warn them that things can change. The sox cant ever guarantee Garland a spot in the rotation, there is no way they should br required to guarantee a would be 5th starter anything.

voodoochile
02-08-2003, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
You cant make any promises to employees. You tell them what your current plan is, and you also warn them that things can change. The sox cant ever guarantee Garland a spot in the rotation, there is no way they should br required to guarantee a would be 5th starter anything.

I agree, but Rogers isn't just any starter. He is a guy with a long career and has been successful, including having a very good year just last year, so telling him what is what before they sign him might prevent problems down the road.

Yes, ideally there wouldn't be any problems ever with professional athletes being paid millions to play a game, but we all know that isn't the case...

idseer
02-08-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Anyone who would make an assumption DIFFERENT from this is basically making an excuse for the incompetence of Sox management. They're saying Manuel and Williams can't be trusted to make the BEST personnel decisions. They think Sox management will put its wallet ahead of fielding the best team possible.

Maybe they're right, but so what? It has NOTHING to do with acquiring Rogers. If management is too dumb to field the strongest team possible, it makes no difference who we acquire! The point is moot.



i don't think the point is moot at all. your logic is based on the way you would do things, not on what fans feel manual or williams will do. i believe what they're saying is jm CAN'T be trusted to do the right thing and a perfect example of this is how they used clayton for two years JUST BECAUSE HE WAS THERE!
they're saying if rogers is there ... he'll take rauch's spot.

obviously management IS too dumb to field the strongest team and that's what we have to work with.
so in a perfect world getting rogers does make sense ... in white sox world ... it will steal time from rauch.

VeeckAsInWreck
02-08-2003, 12:10 PM
I believe that Kenny Rogers would solidify our staff. Buehrle started out in the bullpen, why can't Rauch?

Everyone on this site is so negative, if the Red Sox were on crack and traded us Pedro Martinez, I bet there would still be a few people that would find something bad about the deal.

"Oh, we gave up too much!"

"Pedro had 2 bad innings last year, what if he has more bad innings? Fire KW already!"

"If Pedro pitches for us, our bullpen won't see any work!"


Let's lighten up folks! We are looking good this year, and Kenny Rogers would help us more than you think.

idseer
02-08-2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by VeeckAsInWreck
I believe that Kenny Rogers would solidify our staff. Buehrle started out in the bullpen, why can't Rauch?

Everyone on this site is so negative, if the Red Sox were on crack and traded us Pedro Martinez, I bet there would still be a few people that would find something bad about the deal.

"Oh, we gave up too much!"

"Pedro had 2 bad innings last year, what if he has more bad innings? Fire KW already!"

"If Pedro pitches for us, our bullpen won't see any work!"


Let's lighten up folks! We are looking good this year, and Kenny Rogers would help us more than you think.

as if the 'lightened up' folks are all on the side of bringing rogers in. right!
and i bet you're wrong. i don't think anyone would complain at all if we got martinez .... unless we gave up the team for him.
so.... what's your point?

i guess us 'weighted down' folk just believe we'd be better off without rogers.

WhiteSox = Life
02-08-2003, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by idseer
as if the 'lightened up' folks are all on the side of bringing rogers in. right!
and i bet you're wrong. i don't think anyone would complain at all if we got martinez .... unless we gave up the team for him.
so.... what's your point?

i guess us 'weighted down' folk just believe we'd be better off without rogers.

All I believe VeeckAsInWreck is saying is that there are always going to be pessimists in any pick-up, move or acquisition the White Sox make. Furthermore, he thinks that adding Kenny Rogers to the White Sox would be a good move and just doesn't understand why those people who don't think Rogers would be a good addition think that way.

Those in the "Bring Kenny Rogers In" camp are saying that, if he accepts the terms of the contract and goes along with the role he is given, if at any point he proves he can be a solid pitcher better than somebody on the current rotation or in the bullpen, he should be the player there. Besides that, it never hurts to have more pitching in case of tiredness or injury.

Those in the "Don't Bring Kenny Rogers In" camp feel that his career is over with and his numbers prove that statement. They feel that having Rogers take the place of, say, Rauch, would be detrimental to the team in the long run, and very possibly, this year as well.

Others have a view in-between, thinking, if Rogers is signed, fine, let him pitch if he does well. If he doesn't, get him outta there. That's probably where my opinion lies.

Personally, I think that the Rogers deal will not go down unless the price becomes too irresistable for Kenny Williams to not take. However, if and when it comes down to that, somebody else is going to take Rogers before KW.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

lowesox
02-08-2003, 02:20 PM
This is such a great debate! And there's a reason for that. Both sides are sort of right. Of course, adding a guy like Rogers could make this team better. But here's where the division lies:

Some Sox fans (myself included) feel that this team looks pretty good as it is, and already has some pretty exciting options for the #5 spot. I for one, have been very critical of the sox management for a long time. For once, I'm going to stop looking for fault. Williams and co. have done a fabulous job this offseason. I've been a WhiteSox fan for a long time, and this is in my opinion, the best team I can remember having before a season.

Would Rogers make us better? Maybe. But lets stop acting like greedy Yankee fans who need to sign every million dollar veteran on the market. At some point we need to have faith in the players that we have. Maybe some of you would be happier rooting for New York.

Good fans need to appreciate their team now and again. If you don't, you won't have any right complaining when they do something dumb, or worse, celebrating when they win.

LongDistanceFan
02-09-2003, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by WhiteSox = Life
All I believe VeeckAsInWreck is saying is that there are always going to be pessimists in any pick-up, move or acquisition the White Sox make. Furthermore, he thinks that adding Kenny Rogers to the White Sox would be a good move and just doesn't understand why those people who don't think Rogers would be a good addition think that way.

Those in the "Bring Kenny Rogers In" camp are saying that, if he accepts the terms of the contract and goes along with the role he is given, if at any point he proves he can be a solid pitcher better than somebody on the current rotation or in the bullpen, he should be the player there. Besides that, it never hurts to have more pitching in case of tiredness or injury.

Those in the "Don't Bring Kenny Rogers In" camp feel that his career is over with and his numbers prove that statement. They feel that having Rogers take the place of, say, Rauch, would be detrimental to the team in the long run, and very possibly, this year as well.

Others have a view in-between, thinking, if Rogers is signed, fine, let him pitch if he does well. If he doesn't, get him outta there. That's probably where my opinion lies.

Personally, I think that the Rogers deal will not go down unless the price becomes too irresistable for Kenny Williams to not take. However, if and when it comes down to that, somebody else is going to take Rogers before KW.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

what i see in this debate is that some might think that rogers will take time away from rauch. if the first month or so, a 5th pitcher will not be needed. so where will rauch be?

second, it will do great for rauch to start in the bullpen and get used to the hitters in the majors and learn his craft as some others pitcher have done. but most importantly, we need to put the best starting rotation out there b/c we have some glaring holes and questionable one as well.

cf is the glaring hole and cat and big frank are the questionable ones.

Lip Man 1
02-09-2003, 02:13 AM
Lowesox says: "Some Sox fans (myself included) feel that this team looks pretty good as it is, and already has some pretty exciting options for the #5 spot ".

I think the team looks pretty good as well but it's a looonnnggg season, injuries happen and Buehrle, Garland, Wright and Rauch all have less then three seasons each in MLB. That's seems risky to me. I don't think there is anything wrong in getting as much depth as possible now and see what happens.

Trying to get pitching help in July may be even riskier and cost a lot more.

Lip

lowesox
02-09-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Lowesox says: "Some Sox fans (myself included) feel that this team looks pretty good as it is, and already has some pretty exciting options for the #5 spot ".

I think the team looks pretty good as well but it's a looonnnggg season, injuries happen and Buehrle, Garland, Wright and Rauch all have less then three seasons each in MLB. That's seems risky to me. I don't think there is anything wrong in getting as much depth as possible now and see what happens.

Trying to get pitching help in July may be even riskier and cost a lot more.

Lip


I think this team has tons of depth as it is. They have several players to choose from already for this spot: Stewart, Rauch, Heredia, Loaiza -- and those are just the obvious ones. In every spring training usually there's a pleasant surprise or two. For the first season that I can remember, there's a good chance that the sox won't have enough roster spots for pitchers who deserve them.

And, what if we have to downgrade (through trade) at another position to be able to afford Rogers? I think it would suck if we traded away Jose Valentin, or Carlos Lee to lower the payroll, and then have some of the other guys vying for the 5th spot pitch really well in spring training.

If we're going to add depth, then I say we inquire how much Helling and Person are asking... If they're cheap, ok. If not, lets just go to spring training and let the best man win.

dougs78
02-09-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Anyone who would make an assumption DIFFERENT from this is basically making an excuse for the incompetence of Sox management. They're saying Manuel and Williams can't be trusted to make the BEST personnel decisions. They think Sox management will put its wallet ahead of fielding the best team possible.

Maybe they're right, but so what? It has NOTHING to do with acquiring Rogers. If management is too dumb to field the strongest team possible, it makes no difference who we acquire! The point is moot.

The basis of their point is nothing but an indictment of Sox management. I'll be happy to debate this separately, but it has NOTHING to do with getting Rogers to improve our pitching staff.

I'm not sure its as simple as competence or incompetence. Its human nature and the decision is being made now...not so much in March, April or even July. KW is deciding RIGHT NOW whether he feels that Rogers will provide the better chance of winning OVER THE COURSE OF THE SEASON. Hes not going to sign Rogers "just to see what happens." Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury. So what that means is that if KW makes the decision that Rogers presents us the best opportunity to win over the course of the season (and hopefully playoffs) then it is likely that Rogers will continue to start until such time as KW is proven clearly wrong. That is to say, "beyond a reasonable doubt." My point all along has been that I feel this is how the Kenny Rogers era would play out and I'm not sure thats best for the team.

I really don't think this is an issue of the incompetence of KW or JM, its something that any GM would do. Even Einstein himself, "Sir William Beane," would probably stick with his guns if he made a bet on a certain player. He would not make a signing only to see a few bad games early in the year cause that person to lose their spot.

Also, lets assume for one second that all positions were indeed decided strictly on merit and that Kenny Rogers ends up as the 4th guy out of the bullpen come opening day. Do you think that would be great for team chemistry? Becuase I certainly don't.

dougs78
02-09-2003, 01:25 PM
posted by PHG:
Anyone who would make an assumption DIFFERENT from this is basically making an excuse for the incompetence of Sox management. They're saying Manuel and Williams can't be trusted to make the BEST personnel decisions.

To take the argument a step further I would actually propose the opposite of the above statemnet is true. Lets look at the original assumption PHG is referring to:

posted by DougS78:
...that he (Rogers) would be just as likely to have a Porzio role as he would a Ritchie role. So that where and when Rogers pitches will be decided strtictly on merit and performance, as opposed to other factors....

If one is operating under this assumption, and that to do otherwise would be "incompetent," then we should follow this assumption to its logical conclusion. That conclusion is that if JM and KW were completely "competent," they would award not only Rogers position, but ALL POSITIONS strictly on merit. Of course the ramifications of this assumption could very well be Mike Porzio or Corwin Malone having better springs than Buehrle and Colon and thus they become the #1 and #2 starters. Perhaps Rios has a better spring than Ordonez, does this mean that a competent manager would slot Rios as the opening day right fielder??

I ask, does this seem like a "competent" way to run a ball club???

Or could it be that maybe, just maybe, that past performance and anticipated future performance should have at least some role in JM deciding who gets the #5 slot??

gogosoxgogo
02-09-2003, 03:05 PM
I fail to see any argument here. What's wrong with adding more depth? You always need more starting pitching. The guy's a free agent, it's not like we're trading for him, and we don't even lose a first round draft pick. Are you saying that you don't want JR to spend money to improve the team after years of everyone begging him to?

PaleHoseGeorge
02-09-2003, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by gogosoxgogo
I fail to see any argument here. What's wrong with adding more depth? You always need more starting pitching. The guy's a free agent, it's not like we're trading for him, and we don't even lose a first round draft pick. Are you saying that you don't want JR to spend money to improve the team after years of everyone begging him to?

I dunno. After 85 years wandering in the wilderness, perhaps some fans are simply afraid of success? It's far easier to dream about the glorious rewards from chasing the rainbow than it is to do what is necessary to capture the pot of gold. I'm left scratching my head at some of the fatalism I've read in this thread.

Bill Veeck said it best. "Suffering is overrated. It doesn't teach you anything."

Bmr31
02-09-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I dunno. After 85 years wandering in the wilderness, perhaps some fans are simply afraid of success? It's far easier to dream about the glorious rewards from chasing the the rainbow than it is to do what is necessary to capture the pot of gold. I'm left scratching my head at some of the fatalism I've read in this thread.

Bill Veeck said it best. "Suffering is overrated. It doesn't teach you anything."

Honestly, i think the negative reaction to your thread, is just that. Negative reaction from typically negative people. Theyre used to the sox losing and theyre comfortable with it. I for one, want a freakin world series ring. Signing Rogers can not hurt!!

PaleHoseGeorge
02-09-2003, 05:56 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
If one is operating under this assumption, and that to do otherwise would be "incompetent," then we should follow this assumption to its logical conclusion. That conclusion is that if JM and KW were completely "competent," they would award not only Rogers position, but ALL POSITIONS strictly on merit. Of course the ramifications of this assumption could very well be Mike Porzio or Corwin Malone having better springs than Buehrle and Colon and thus they become the #1 and #2 starters. Perhaps Rios has a better spring than Ordonez, does this mean that a competent manager would slot Rios as the opening day right fielder??

I ask, does this seem like a "competent" way to run a ball club???

Or could it be that maybe, just maybe, that past performance and anticipated future performance should have at least some role in JM deciding who gets the #5 slot??

I'm assuming you're familiar with the term "specious argument?" You've clearly crossed the line above.

Nobody here is making the case for who should or shouldn't be part of the Sox pitching rotation. Last I checked, only two people were guaranteed such slots, Buehrle and Colon. This is all together reasonable given their ACTUAL PERFORMANCE in the same role. Nobody is debating this silly point of yours.

The debate is whether acquiring Rogers as a free agent strengthens the Sox PITCHING STAFF, not the rotation! There are several posters here, besides you, that remain convinced Sox management will screw things up by making such a move. I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to make the case why Rogers wouldn't improve our staff. The remaining complaints all center on somebody's opinion here in February of what the rotation ought to be next April-September. We all have opinions; I'm looking for reasoning.

I guess I'm just going to have to keep waiting.

dougs78
02-09-2003, 08:54 PM
All right, perhaps I wrote too much. I seem to have that problem sometimes of being excessively verbose so that people miss my points.

My real point is that its not the no risk proposition that it is being made out to be. I honestly can say that I would not be unhappy if Rogers is signed, but I can't say I'll be overjoyed either.

Reasons it could be a bad move:

1. Rogers ends up in the bullpen after Rauch outpitches him in spring training and becomes a clubhouse distraction by pouting about not starting.

2. Rogers mirrors the season of Ritchie where we end up trotting him back out there chasing the first few starts while he stinks up the joint.

3. Rogers has an average season in the starting lineup while Rauch spends time in AAA or in the bullpen, while he could have helped us more in the rotation.

4. Theres a trade to be made to take on salary at the break and the extra 2.5 million we are paying Rogers hamstrings us.

Granted, I don't see any of these as very likely...but they are possible. And IMO the chances of Rogers having a very good season are not particularly better. Overall count me as ambivalent until proven otherwise.

LongDistanceFan
02-10-2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by dougs78
All right, perhaps I wrote too much. I seem to have that problem sometimes of being excessively verbose so that people miss my points.

My real point is that its not the no risk proposition that it is being made out to be. I honestly can say that I would not be unhappy if Rogers is signed, but I can't say I'll be overjoyed either.

Reasons it could be a bad move:

1. Rogers ends up in the bullpen after Rauch outpitches him in spring training and becomes a clubhouse distraction by pouting about not starting. how bout rogers out pitching garland and or wright, or how bout 1 of the starting pitchers getting hurt. we will have that insurance with rogers int he rotation of a safety net.

2. Rogers mirrors the season of Ritchie where we end up trotting him back out there chasing the first few starts while he stinks up the joint. rogers has pitch in the AL and been successful, but if he does, bring him out of the bullpen.

3. Rogers has an average season in the starting lineup while Rauch spends time in AAA or in the bullpen, while he could have helped us more in the rotation. you are making a natural assumption that rauch will be sent back to the minors, i am looking at the possiblity that prazio will not make the team and rauch can.

4. Theres a trade to be made to take on salary at the break and the extra 2.5 million we are paying Rogers hamstrings us. is an extra 2.5 mil worth getting to the playoff? that is george stienbrenner approach, spending and look how many rings he has.

Granted, I don't see any of these as very likely...but they are possible. And IMO the chances of Rogers having a very good season are not particularly better. Overall count me as ambivalent until proven otherwise.

if rogers can give us a winning record against minn and cle then the investment is worth it.

maurice
02-10-2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
There are several posters here, besides you, that remain convinced Sox management will screw things up by making such a move. I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to make the case why Rogers wouldn't improve our staff. The remaining complaints all center on somebody's opinion here in February of what the rotation ought to be next April-September.

The posters' OPINIONS obviously are central to this thread. No one KNOWS how Rauch or Rogers will pitch in 2003. In fact, these two pitchers are particularly difficult to project, since one is an inexperienced prospect and the other is really old. It is, however, reasonable to project: (1) that "Sox management will screw things up," since they've done so in the past; (2) that said "screw up" will be allowing Rogers will take lots of innings from Rauch, even if Rauch outperforms him; (3) that a veteran starter might cause a stink in the clubhouse if he's relegated to long-relief; and (4) that KW would send Rauch back to AAA to get regular starts, rather than irregular work as a long reliever.

In other words, it's incorrect to frame the issue as Rogers v. Porzio (or some other bullpen pitcher). The issue is Rogers v. Rauch . . . which brings us full circle, since the answer depends upon OPINION. Rauch may pitch lights out in 2003 . . . or not. Rogers might be done . . . or not. My own opinion, expressed elsewhere, is that Rogers isn't quite done yet, and will have a 4.something ERA in 2003. Rauch certainly COULD do better than that. Heck, Porzio COULD do better than that. At this point, however, it's all a matter of OPINION, based on difficult-to-make projections.

This has been a very interesting couple of threads, but my positon remains: sign Rogers only in the unlikely event that he agrees to play insurance policy for our young starters.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by maurice
The posters' OPINIONS obviously are central to this thread. No one KNOWS how Rauch or Rogers will pitch in 2003. In fact, these two pitchers are particularly difficult to project, since one is an inexperienced prospect and the other is really old. It is, however, reasonable to project: (1) that "Sox management will screw things up," since they've done so in the past; (2) that said "screw up" will be allowing Rogers will take lots of innings from Rauch, even if Rauch outperforms him; (3) that a veteran starter might cause a stink in the clubhouse if he's relegated to long-relief; and (4) that KW would send Rauch back to AAA to get regular starts, rather than irregular work as a long reliever.

In other words, it's incorrect to frame the issue as Rogers v. Porzio (or some other bullpen pitcher). The issue is Rogers v. Rauch . . . which brings us full circle, since the answer depends upon OPINION. Rauch may pitch lights out in 2003 . . . or not. Rogers might be done . . . or not. My own opinion, expressed elsewhere, is that Rogers isn't quite done yet, and will have a 4.something ERA in 2003. Rauch certainly COULD do better than that. Heck, Porzio COULD do better than that. At this point, however, it's all a matter of OPINION, based on difficult-to-make projections.

This has been a very interesting couple of threads, but my positon remains: sign Rogers only in the unlikely event that he agrees to play insurance policy for our young starters.

If Sox management is so incompetent that you believe items 1., 2., 3., and 4. above, why on Earth even have this debate? If you are ALREADY conceding points 1 through 4, we're as whipped as we've ever been the past 85 years. I'm not sure you intended to do this, but you've placed your finger precisely on the reason the Sox have NEVER won a championship the last 8 decades: team management is too screwed up to make the winning moves.

Sure, as you state above, the Sox "could" win with Rauch in the rotation. And it's true too, that Porzio "could" pitch better than Rogers. Monkeys "could" fly out of my butt, too--but I'm not willing to roll the dice on such an occurence if I have better options available--like signing Rogers to knock the worst pitching slug off our pitching staff. Even you agree with this.

Don't get frustrated with me or my position. I'm only stating the obvious. If Rogers can improve this pitching staff, we ought to get him. If Sox management is too incompetent to make this move work to our advantage, then that's ONE MORE THING that needs to be fixed, TOO. You're not seriously suggesting the Sox can win a championship with management too incompetent to take advantage of the opportunities in front of them, are you?

Remember--we're trying to win a championship here. This ain't the player development team for guys who graduated from Charlotte. Rauch will pitch what his ACTUAL PERFORMANCE dictates--or something else about Sox management team needs fixing, too. The need to fix one does not preclude the need to fix the other--assuming (as you have) that management is broken, too.

I'm a bit tired of waiting for the "could's" to finally happen.

hold2dibber
02-10-2003, 12:13 PM
I have several thoughts to consider on this topic:

(1) If the Sox do NOT sign Rogers, the rotation is Buehrle, Colon, Garland, Wright and Rauch to start the season (most likely). Raise your hand if you think those 5 guys would end up starting all 162 games. It is HIGHLY unlikely that the 5 guys that start the season in the rotation will all make it through to the end. Guys get hurt and/or are ineffective and get demoted. The point? Having starting rotation depth in your organization is a great way to get the leg up on your competition, and more starting depth you have, the better.

(2) To those who say we already have plenty of depth - look at Rogers' numbers last year as compared to Loaiza's or Heredia's. Who would you rather have when the need arises (and it will arise)?

(3) If the Sox do sign Rogers, he will not be the 5th starter. He'll be the 4th (or maybe even 3rd) starter and Wright will be the 5th starter.

(4) Can someone explain to me why pitching in AAA or in long relief would somehow stunt or impede Rauch's development? If he's as good as I think he is, he'll be ready to go if/when someone gets injured or demoted, or when his rotation spot is secured next spring, regardless of the role he fills in the interim.

SoxxoS
02-10-2003, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
(4) Can someone explain to me why pitching in AAA or in long relief would somehow stunt or impede Rauch's development? If he's as good as I think he is, he'll be ready to go if/when someone gets injured or demoted, or when his rotation spot is secured next spring, regardless of the role he fills in the interim.


I am not sure how someone can say that either. We remember him in his final starts, and they were impressive, but those were against the 40 man roster when nobody was playing for much. I actually think he would be better served going out there every 5th day in AAA for about a month, then go from there.

dougs78
02-10-2003, 12:30 PM
Ok, we are going to agree to disagree here. I think PHG and others make good and valid points, but I still think the situation is being oversimplified.

To attempt again to clarify my earlier posts, there is a flaw in this whole merit based allocation of playing time. That problem is that there is no objective measure of "merit." Wins? Ks? ERA? WHIP? which of these would we use to decide who gets to start and who doesn't?? And even if we agreed on some statistic, over which span do we conclude? Do we just use spring training? Do we use a certain # of games to decide merit based on this statistic?

To conclude, the point i'm trying to get across is that the decision on who to start at which spot is not going to be made on the basis of purely statistical prediction from objective measures of merit. JM, KW or whoever will think about it and take those things into consideration along with many other "gut" feelings and ultimately put out the person whom they feel gives the White Sox the best chance to win. I have complete faith in their ability to do that.

My true hope is that if they decide that Rogers is the guy we are going to need to help us this season that they will have faith in their own judgment and stick with him even if he struggles at times.

dougs78
02-10-2003, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
(4) Can someone explain to me why pitching in AAA or in long relief would somehow stunt or impede Rauch's development? If he's as good as I think he is, he'll be ready to go if/when someone gets injured or demoted, or when his rotation spot is secured next spring, regardless of the role he fills in the interim.

I am not coming at that from the angle of impeding Rauch's development, I'm coming from the "win now" position. I'm certainly not saying that Rauch pitching lights out in AAA or the bullpen will hurt the White Sox. I'm merely pointing out that perhaps the White Sox overall strength could have been enhanced by him doing that in our starting rotation.

maurice
02-10-2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If Sox management is so incompetent that you believe items 1., 2., 3., and 4. above, why on Earth even have this debate?

You know the answer to that, George: because we have to argue about something until camp opens. :D:

If you are ALREADY conceding points 1 through 4, we're as whipped as we've ever been the past 85 years. I'm not sure you intended to do this, but you've placed your finger precisely on the reason the Sox have NEVER won a championship the last 8 decades: team management is too screwed up to make the winning moves.

Well, it looks like we're in agreement, then. Sox management is not to be trusted to make correct moves. I want to avoid future management mistakes set-up by a potentially problematic player move and hope we can win a World Series under the "blind squirrel" theory.

Sure, as you state above, the Sox "could" win with Rauch in the rotation. And it's true too, that Porzio "could" pitch better than Rogers. Monkeys "could" fly out of my butt, too--but I'm not willing to roll the dice on such an occurence if I have better options available--like signing Rogers to knock the worst pitching slug off our pitching staff. Even you agree with this.

Respectfully, George, while I'm not too familiar with your personal hygene, I believe the chances of Rauch being successful this season are greater than the chances that monkeys will fly out of your butt. Given the fact that Sox management is not changing between now and spring training, this debate comes down to the following divergence of opinion:

- Group A thinks that Rauch will outpitch Rogers in 2003, doesn't trust Sox management to start the better pitcher, and doesn't trust Rogers to keep his mouth shut if relegated to long-relief.

- Group B thinks that Rogers will outpitch Rauch in 2003, and trusts Sox management to bring Rauch along in a manner that will not detrimentally affect his development.

Both groups want to "win now."

Don't get frustrated with me or my position.

Not at all. I find this rather enjoyable.

I'm only stating the obvious. If Rogers can improve this pitching staff, we ought to get him.

You say "if" / I say "could." Po-tay-to / po-tah-to.

As you know, I agree that Rogers "could" improve the pitching staff . . . but I'm not sure if it.

You're not seriously suggesting the Sox can win a championship with management too incompetent to take advantage of the opportunities in front of them, are you?

Jeez, I sure hope so, because I don't see Sox management changing any time soon. They've been able to win the division a few times. Maybe the blind squirrel can find itself a World Series ring also. No? How about the law of averages? Work with me here.

If I can't have an irrational belief in February that my team will win the championship, when can I?

LongDistanceFan
02-10-2003, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by maurice


- Group A thinks that Rauch will outpitch Rogers in 2003, doesn't trust Sox management to start the better pitcher, and doesn't trust Rogers to keep his mouth shut if relegated to long-relief.

- Group B thinks that Rogers will outpitch Rauch in 2003, and trusts Sox management to bring Rauch along in a manner that will not detrimentally affect his development.

Both groups want to "win now."




why not a group c where those who say that you can't have enuf pitching talent to win.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan
why not a group c where those who say that you can't have enuf pitching talent to win.

Why not? Because as Maurice himself states it, he can only make the case for his position (Group A) by reducing this argument to a fight over who should be in the STARTING ROTATION. To hear him tell it, this is a fight between Rauch supporters and Rogers supporters. That's what he meant when he wrote:

- Group A thinks that Rauch will outpitch Rogers in 2003, doesn't trust Sox management to start the better pitcher, and doesn't trust Rogers to keep his mouth shut if relegated to long-relief.

- Group B thinks that Rogers will outpitch Rauch in 2003, and trusts Sox management to bring Rauch along in a manner that will not detrimentally affect his development.


Nevermind that the title of this thread is "Why not upgrade the PITCHING STAFF?" Those against upgrading the staff are focused instead on the rotation--as though we were talking about mutually exclusive positions or something. Many of them, like Maurice, will even admit to PREFERRING a weaker staff simply because management incompetence is too great a risk to the development of Rauch.

It's insane the level of fatalism that 85+ years of losing has wrought on the psyche of some Sox Fans. It's February and they've already thrown in the towel.

maurice
02-10-2003, 05:31 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Why not? Because as Maurice himself states it, he can only make the case for his position (Group A) by reducing this argument to a fight over who should be in the STARTING ROTATION.

Correct. Your alternative argument presupposes a bizarro world where a veteran starting pitcher would agree to pitch long relief for a team that finished .500 last year after agreeing to a massive pay cut -- an attitude that contrasts sharply with everything we know about modern athletes. If he agrees to be a long-reliever / insurance policy, I am on record (more than once) as being in favor of the acquisition.

a weaker staff

That remains an open question. You conclude that Rogers would replace Porzio or some other pitcher in the pen . . . but you're not the manager, George. JM and KW decide who makes the roster. I'm sure that their use of players is not always consistent with your personal opinion.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-10-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Correct. Your alternative argument presupposes a bizarro world where a veteran starting pitcher would agree to pitch long relief for a team that finished .500 last year after agreeing to a massive pay cut -- an attitude that contrasts sharply with everything we know about modern athletes. If he agrees to be a long-reliever / insurance policy, I am on record (more than once) as being in favor of the acquisition.

Bizarre? I guess you haven't checked the extreme example of the New York Yankees. There are lesser examples,too. What do all of these teams have in common? Nobody in their front office sees it as a problem to make the roster stronger. Their management focuses on winning, not stroking egos.



That remains an open question. You conclude that Rogers would replace Porzio or some other pitcher in the pen . . . but you're not the manager, George. JM and KW decide who makes the roster. I'm sure that their use of players is not always consistent with your personal opinion.

Read this very carefully, Maurice. Adding Kenny Rogers allows us to ditch the WORST pitcher on the Sox pitching staff. If you have no confidence in their judgment to choose who that WORST pitcher is, God help us because we certainly weren't ever going to win a championship whether we got Rogers or not.

dougs78
02-10-2003, 09:33 PM
Oh for pete's sake George, can you please quit the "if you don't agree with me then you want the Sox to lose" routine???

Not one soul here has ever said, "I don't want Rogers, because we would have better shot at winning with him on the team." Yet that is your main argument against the points that Maurice and I are making. The strawman is dead...let it go.

Do you or do you not agree, that it is possible that Rogers would likely prove to be a clubhouse distraction if he is struggling out of the bullpen?? I'm not saying you think its likely I'm just asking if you think its possible.

fuzzy_patters
02-10-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
Oh for pete's sake George, can you please quit the "if you don't agree with me then you want the Sox to lose" routine???

Not one soul here has ever said, "I don't want Rogers, because we would have better shot at winning with him on the team." Yet that is your main argument against the points that Maurice and I are making. The strawman is dead...let it go.

Do you or do you not agree, that it is possible that Rogers would likely prove to be a clubhouse distraction if he is struggling out of the bullpen?? I'm not saying you think its likely I'm just asking if you think its possible.

What if he is a distraction? It's only a one year deal, just buy it out at that point. Extra arms are an insurance policy against inexperience pitching costing the Sox a playoff berth. Insurance isn't always needed, but it's nice to know you put the money into it if it is needed. If the Sox have to buy out the contract, they haven't really lost any money because they would have had to pay him the rest of his contract eventually, anyway.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2003, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by dougs78
Oh for pete's sake George, can you please quit the "if you don't agree with me then you want the Sox to lose" routine???

Not one soul here has ever said, "I don't want Rogers, because we would have better shot at winning with him on the team." Yet that is your main argument against the points that Maurice and I are making. The strawman is dead...let it go.

Do you or do you not agree, that it is possible that Rogers would likely prove to be a clubhouse distraction if he is struggling out of the bullpen?? I'm not saying you think its likely I'm just asking if you think its possible.

LOL! My only point since this thread started over 100 posts ago has been this:

"Why not upgrade the pitching staff?"

I'm sure it was quite obvious to most everyone here because I entitled the thread "Why not upgrade the pitching staff." Go ahead, check it out for yourself.

In the subsequent 100 posts, I've read some amazing theories on why Rogers would not upgrade the pitching staff. Most of them confuse "pitching rotation" with "pitching STAFF." Others opine that Rauch is actually a better pitcher than Rogers, and still others note that Porzio "could be" better than Rogers, too.

The newest theory is that Sox management is too inept to use an upgraded pitching staff effectively. Ipso facto, these people prefer a weaker pitching staff. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

So, just for the record, veteran starter Scott Sanderson was relegated to the #5 spot on the A.L. Central champion 1994 Sox. That same team featured another former starter, veteran Kirk McCaskill, in the bullpen. All four of the regular starters (McDowell, Fernandez, Alvarez, and Bere) were younger than EITHER of these veteran starting pitchers. Back then, of course, the Sox (and their fans) were all about winning. This thread reveals that in the nine years since, things have changed--at least for a few of you.

However, since I've obviously gotten under your skin, let me state what should have been obvious: I don't think anybody here wants to see the Sox to lose. It's only when we begin probing into their reasoning that the problems start.

hold2dibber
02-11-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by dougs78
Oh for pete's sake George, can you please quit the "if you don't agree with me then you want the Sox to lose" routine???

Not one soul here has ever said, "I don't want Rogers, because we would have better shot at winning with him on the team." Yet that is your main argument against the points that Maurice and I are making. The strawman is dead...let it go.

Do you or do you not agree, that it is possible that Rogers would likely prove to be a clubhouse distraction if he is struggling out of the bullpen?? I'm not saying you think its likely I'm just asking if you think its possible.

I do think that is a possibility. However, here's a scenario that is much more likely, in my mind: the Sox don't sign Rogers and 1 or 2 of the guys in the starting rotation get hurt or are ineffective, requiring the Sox to go to their 6th and 7th "starters". If the Sox don't sign Rogers, that means Esteban Loaiza (and his way over 5.00 ERA) and/or Gil Heredia (who was so bad in '01 that he couldn't get a job in '02) and/or Corwin Malone (who walked more batters than he struck out in AA last year, I believe), etc. If the Sox do sign Kenny Rogers, when the inevitable need to plug in someone else into the starting rotation arises, that someone else is 2000 minor league player of the year Jon Rauch. Much better.

I understand the potential problem with having too many starters, but the fact remains that the Sox WILL need more than five starters over the course of the season. It's a virtual lock. It happens every year to virtually every team. And Kenny Rogers - although I don't think he's a world beater - upgrades the staff, gives the team more depth and gives us a huge upgrade in our 6th starter (Rauch instead of Loaiza or Heredia). Plus, even if Rauch is pushed out of the rotation, he'll get his regular turns in Charlotte early in the year, will likely be working out of the bullpen by early summer, and will still probably get 10-15 MLB starts over the course of the year. So I don't think signing Rogers would thwart Rauch's development. In any event, the plusses clearly outweigh the potential minuses.

maurice
02-11-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Bizarre? I guess you haven't checked the extreme example of the New York Yankees. There are lesser examples, too. What do all of these teams have in common?

Hmm . . . let's see. They didn't finish .500 last year and have actually won something in the last 85 years? It is pretty bizarre indeed to believe that pitchers such as Weaver, Hitchcock, and Rogers would be willing to pitch out of the pen for a team that finished .500 last year. Maybe the '94 Sox, but not the '03 Sox.

Every team would like to be the Yankees. Every fan wants an owner who will insist on winning at all costs. Every player wants to be associated with a team with a winning tradition, even if it means a reduced role. Please understand that the '03 Sox are not such a team, and we cannot make them so by believing fairytales.

Ipso facto, these people prefer a weaker pitching staff. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Unless the opinion conflicts with your opinion that the Sox staff is "ipso facto" better with Rogers. That may be indisputable for the Bizarro World Sox (who apparently are the Yankees in disguise), but every other poster seems to acknowledge that it's a matter of opinion on this plane of existence and impossible to project with anything approaching your absolute certainty.

It's only when we begin probing into their reasoning that the problems start.

I wish you'd start doing that, instead of trumpeting the same tired lines time and again. For example, Dib recently approached the issue by agreeing that the signing might cause problems, but concluded that it's worth the risk -- a very reasonable position. But since your hollow rhetoric dominates this thread (which you did indeed name), I'll take a cue from doug, "agree to disagree," stop reading this thread, and see if I can entertain myself elsewhere on this wonderful resource known as White Sox Interactive.

Good day, gentlemen.

dougs78
02-11-2003, 10:45 AM
Amen Maurice. I could not have said it any better myself.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2003, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Hmm . . . let's see. They didn't finish .500 last year and have actually won something in the last 85 years? It is pretty bizarre indeed to believe that pitchers such as Weaver, Hitchcock, and Rogers would be willing to pitch out of the pen for a team that finished .500 last year. Maybe the '94 Sox, but not the '03 Sox.

Facts are hard things to change. McCaskill had been with the Sox since 1992. He was DEMOTED in favor of younger pitchers. He was valued member of a pitching staff that won 94 games in 1993 and a division title in strike-shortened 1994. I can't recall a single problem with this arrangement. It's worth noting that manager Gene Lamont was very laid back, and anything but a clubhouse tyrant. Does this sound similar to the Jerry Manuel situation in 2003?

As for Sanderson, he joined the Sox as a free agent after few other teams expressed much interest in signing him. Does this sound similar to the Rogers situation in 2003?

Every team would like to be the Yankees. Every fan wants an owner who will insist on winning at all costs. Every player wants to be associated with a team with a winning tradition, even if it means a reduced role. Please understand that the '03 Sox are not such a team, and we cannot make them so by believing fairytales.

It doesn't have to be the Yankees--and I stated so earlier in this thread. It only has to be a team looking for ways to upgrade the talent on their roster. The Sox of the early and mid-90's were that kind of team. See my response above.

The 1992 Sox won 86 games, finished third, and 10 games back from a playoff spot. The '03 Sox are at least as close to paydirt as that team was. I believe Phil Rogers the sportswriter was making this point in his reference to whether Rogers the pitcher would want to join a team that is poised to win something bigger.

Unless the opinion conflicts with your opinion that the Sox staff is "ipso facto" better with Rogers. That may be indisputable for the Bizarro World Sox (who apparently are the Yankees in disguise), but every other poster seems to acknowledge that it's a matter of opinion on this plane of existence and impossible to project with anything approaching your absolute certainty.

Actually, I said the Sox staff is better with Rogers than some other slug, such as Mike Porzio as an example. That's my opinion. You're welcome to challenge it.

I wish you'd start doing that, instead of trumpeting the same tired lines time and again. For example, Dib recently approached the issue by agreeing that the signing might cause problems, but concluded that it's worth the risk -- a very reasonable position.

It's a very reasonable position and that's why nobody--least of all me--challenged it. So what's your point?

But since your hollow rhetoric dominates this thread (which you did indeed name), I'll take a cue from doug, "agree to disagree," stop reading this thread, and see if I can entertain myself elsewhere on this wonderful resource known as White Sox Interactive.

Yesterday you said you were enjoying this thread. Today you're not. Perhaps my rhetoric would seem less "hollow" if you could lay a glove on the central theme that I've been trying desperately to drive home in this thread. Namely, that upgrading the pitching staff is a good thing, and acquiring free agent Rogers is an obvious way to do it--apologies to rotation implications, woulda/coulda/shoulda's on future performance, and inept management. Those are problems that AREN'T SOLVED by not signing Rogers. If we keep revisiting these same issues it's PRECISELY because you keep challenging them.

Good day, gentlemen.

If you have opinions, state them. If you have facts to share, share them. If you have neither, don't pout.

Cheryl
02-11-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by maurice


Every team would like to be the Yankees. Every fan wants an owner who will insist on winning at all costs. Every player wants to be associated with a team with a winning tradition, even if it means a reduced role. Please understand that the '03 Sox are not such a team, and we cannot make them so by believing fairytales.


You just reminded me of this. (http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/yankees.html)

LongDistanceFan
02-11-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
What if he is a distraction? It's only a one year deal, just buy it out at that point. Extra arms are an insurance policy against inexperience pitching costing the Sox a playoff berth. Insurance isn't always needed, but it's nice to know you put the money into it if it is needed. If the Sox have to buy out the contract, they haven't really lost any money because they would have had to pay him the rest of his contract eventually, anyway.

pls forgive me for coming in, some may think i am a bottom feeder coming in on the tale end of this discussion, but i can't take it anymore.

what if what if. that is all i have been hearing, let me counter this by saaying what if he is a professional who is 37yo and many yrs as a veteran and accept the job that is given to him if it means getting the team in the best possible position to win. :angry:

LongDistanceFan
02-11-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
I am not coming at that from the angle of impeding Rauch's development, I'm coming from the "win now" position. I'm certainly not saying that Rauch pitching lights out in AAA or the bullpen will hurt the White Sox. I'm merely pointing out that perhaps the White Sox overall strength could have been enhanced by him doing that in our starting rotation.

but who is the better pitcher at this time? rauch or rogers. who brings more to the team to win right now, rauch or rogers or some other fringe pitcher who might get affected by the sox signing of rogers?

LongDistanceFan
02-11-2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I do think that is a possibility. However, here's a scenario that is much more likely, in my mind: the Sox don't sign Rogers and 1 or 2 of the guys in the starting rotation get hurt or are ineffective, requiring the Sox to go to their 6th and 7th "starters". If the Sox don't sign Rogers, that means Esteban Loaiza (and his way over 5.00 ERA) and/or Gil Heredia (who was so bad in '01 that he couldn't get a job in '02) and/or Corwin Malone (who walked more batters than he struck out in AA last year, I believe), etc. If the Sox do sign Kenny Rogers, when the inevitable need to plug in someone else into the starting rotation arises, that someone else is 2000 minor league player of the year Jon Rauch. Much better.

I understand the potential problem with having too many starters, but the fact remains that the Sox WILL need more than five starters over the course of the season. It's a virtual lock. It happens every year to virtually every team. And Kenny Rogers - although I don't think he's a world beater - upgrades the staff, gives the team more depth and gives us a huge upgrade in our 6th starter (Rauch instead of Loaiza or Heredia). Plus, even if Rauch is pushed out of the rotation, he'll get his regular turns in Charlotte early in the year, will likely be working out of the bullpen by early summer, and will still probably get 10-15 MLB starts over the course of the year. So I don't think signing Rogers would thwart Rauch's development. In any event, the plusses clearly outweigh the potential minuses.

i remember reading or hearing a interview with an old timer - ptiching coach that may have been with det or some other team. this was during a rain delay, some 5 or 6 yrs ago. this guy was a hof and he said even back then that he can see were major league teams will start carrying 6 and even 7 pithers b/c of injury and different situation that will open up the game. further more he stated that back then the bull pen was getting over worked. i believe it then as i still do now. i mention this in the old rival days and i some responded to it.

now look at nyy and maybe the position we are getting ourselves in. i think it might come to pass.

PaleHoseGeorge
02-11-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Cheryl
You just reminded me of this. (http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/yankees.html)

Yeah, I saw that piece in The Onion, too. It's funny because it's true... :smile:

The Yankees are buying up every pitcher they can find, I cite the example of the 1992-94 White Sox and the veteran starters we had in supporting roles, draw the obvious parallel between teams that stock up on talent and those that improve their championship pedigree, make the case for adding Kenny Rogers to the pitching staff at between $1-$2 million in incentives without needing to trade away talent to do so--and I'm dismissed by at least one poster as "believing in fairytales." Go figure...

Ya gotta love Sox Fans.

:)

SuckerforSox
02-11-2003, 07:03 PM
I too am sorry for jumping in late on this debate. I just recently found this site and am glad there are plenty of other Sox fans as crazy for baseball in Jan and Feb. as I am.

I am all for signing Kenny Rogers. There has been a lot of debate over this thread, but I think the best reason is to help your overall pitching depth. All five starter are not going to make every start this year. I keep thinking back to 2000 when Eldred, Baldwin, Sirotka were all hurting by the end of the year, and we had to bring pitchers up, who weren't ready to be there yet.

Let Rauch start the season at AAA this year. He had 2 good games at the end of last year with the Sox, but his AAA numbers were very average. He could use some more seasoning. Plan on having him or Josh Stewart ready for when one of your current starters fail. That way you don't have to keep pushing Gary Glover into a starting role. Plus, this way you can make sure he is truly ready. I had wanted to see Crede for two years, but at leat he is now here to stay, and has a ton of confidence as well.

A clear example of this working happened in Anaheim last year. They brought in Sele and Appier to begin the season even though John Lackey was a can't miss prospect who was probably ready in April. By the time the playoffs strated Sele was injured, Appier was average, and Lackey was the starter in Game 7 of he WS.

voodoochile
02-11-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by SuckerforSox
I too am sorry for jumping in late on this debate. I just recently found this site and am glad there are plenty of other Sox fans as crazy for baseball in Jan and Feb. as I am.

I am all for signing Kenny Rogers. There has been a lot of debate over this thread, but I think the best reason is to help your overall pitching depth. All five starter are not going to make every start this year. I keep thinking back to 2000 when Eldred, Baldwin, Sirotka were all hurting by the end of the year, and we had to bring pitchers up, who weren't ready to be there yet.

Let Rauch start the season at AAA this year. He had 2 good games at the end of last year with the Sox, but his AAA numbers were very average. He could use some more seasoning. Plan on having him or Josh Stewart ready for when one of your current starters fail. That way you don't have to keep pushing Gary Glover into a starting role. Plus, this way you can make sure he is truly ready. I had wanted to see Crede for two years, but at leat he is now here to stay, and has a ton of confidence as well.

A clear example of this working happened in Anaheim last year. They brought in Sele and Appier to begin the season even though John Lackey was a can't miss prospect who was probably ready in April. By the time the playoffs strated Sele was injured, Appier was average, and Lackey was the starter in Game 7 of he WS.

Welcome Aboard! :D:

Bmr31
02-11-2003, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by SuckerforSox
I too am sorry for jumping in late on this debate. I just recently found this site and am glad there are plenty of other Sox fans as crazy for baseball in Jan and Feb. as I am.

I am all for signing Kenny Rogers. There has been a lot of debate over this thread, but I think the best reason is to help your overall pitching depth. All five starter are not going to make every start this year. I keep thinking back to 2000 when Eldred, Baldwin, Sirotka were all hurting by the end of the year, and we had to bring pitchers up, who weren't ready to be there yet.

Let Rauch start the season at AAA this year. He had 2 good games at the end of last year with the Sox, but his AAA numbers were very average. He could use some more seasoning. Plan on having him or Josh Stewart ready for when one of your current starters fail. That way you don't have to keep pushing Gary Glover into a starting role. Plus, this way you can make sure he is truly ready. I had wanted to see Crede for two years, but at leat he is now here to stay, and has a ton of confidence as well.

A clear example of this working happened in Anaheim last year. They brought in Sele and Appier to begin the season even though John Lackey was a can't miss prospect who was probably ready in April. By the time the playoffs strated Sele was injured, Appier was average, and Lackey was the starter in Game 7 of he WS.

Wow, i hope you stick around. You know your stuff. I would like to nominate this post as the all time best FIRST post at wsi.

gogosoxgogo
02-11-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by SuckerforSox
I too am sorry for jumping in late on this debate. I just recently found this site and am glad there are plenty of other Sox fans as crazy for baseball in Jan and Feb. as I am.

I am all for signing Kenny Rogers. There has been a lot of debate over this thread, but I think the best reason is to help your overall pitching depth. All five starter are not going to make every start this year. I keep thinking back to 2000 when Eldred, Baldwin, Sirotka were all hurting by the end of the year, and we had to bring pitchers up, who weren't ready to be there yet.

Let Rauch start the season at AAA this year. He had 2 good games at the end of last year with the Sox, but his AAA numbers were very average. He could use some more seasoning. Plan on having him or Josh Stewart ready for when one of your current starters fail. That way you don't have to keep pushing Gary Glover into a starting role. Plus, this way you can make sure he is truly ready. I had wanted to see Crede for two years, but at leat he is now here to stay, and has a ton of confidence as well.

A clear example of this working happened in Anaheim last year. They brought in Sele and Appier to begin the season even though John Lackey was a can't miss prospect who was probably ready in April. By the time the playoffs strated Sele was injured, Appier was average, and Lackey was the starter in Game 7 of he WS.

Nice post, I forgot about Lackey. I still don't see why some are arguing here... what's the problem with depth? I don't get it. I guess some people like saying, "What until next year" (Copyright. Cub Fans Inc.)

SuckerforSox
02-11-2003, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
Wow, i hope you stick around. You know your stuff. I would like to nominate this post as the all time best FIRST post at wsi.

Beginners luck, but I'll definetly be sticking around.

The other thing I was going to mention is that if Rauch ends up really being ready by June or so why couldn't we trade rogers away at that time? Especially if we get him at a good price? I really like Rauch and am very excited for his upside, but I don't see the harm in getting Rogers at the right price.

Bmr31
02-11-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by SuckerforSox
Beginners luck, but I'll definetly be sticking around.

The other thing I was going to mention is that if Rauch ends up really being ready by June or so why couldn't we trade rogers away at that time? Especially if we get him at a good price? I really like Rauch and am very excited for his upside, but I don't see the harm in getting Rogers at the right price.

Yeah, i mentioned that last week. If Rauch is so ready by then, we can deal Rogers and get something decent in return.

gogosoxgogo
02-11-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by SuckerforSox
Beginners luck, but I'll definetly be sticking around.

The other thing I was going to mention is that if Rauch ends up really being ready by June or so why couldn't we trade rogers away at that time? Especially if we get him at a good price? I really like Rauch and am very excited for his upside, but I don't see the harm in getting Rogers at the right price.

Damn, I didn't think of that. That's actually a really good idea. We take Rogers for the first few months of the season and give Rauch enough time to make sure he's ready down in AAA. If by the trade deadline, Rauch is kicking some major ass in AAA and Rogers hasn't turned into Bob Gibson, why not deal him for a prospect to a team needing another starting pitcher. That's a great idea, because it's win-win. If Rauch pitches well, he's not blocked, we'll get a prospect in return, and if Rogers sucks it up, he's out of here. Damn, great post my man. I really hope we can get Rogers now.