PDA

View Full Version : BP's UTK on Jon Rauch


Dadawg_77
03-11-2003, 08:49 PM
Will Carroll talked about Jon Rauch again. Saying he is pitching in the 90 mph range and his quality is of a double a standard.

Daver
03-11-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Will Carroll talked about Jon Rauch again. Saying he is pitching in the 90 mph range and his quality is of a double a standard.

When they ban the radar gun from all forms of baseball the world will be a better place.

jeremyb1
03-11-2003, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
Will Carroll talked about Jon Rauch again. Saying he is pitching in the 90 mph range and his quality is of a double a standard.

he's most likely just struggling with his mechanics in the spring. it happens. maybe he didn't do enough work in the offseason. his health is always going to be a bit of an issue at least in the short term, but after the way he finished last season i don't think its reasonable to attribute any struggles to his health. my guess is he'll go to charlotte pitch well and be up by the all-star break. i guess we'll see.

Lip Man 1
03-11-2003, 11:11 PM
if you re read the transcript of the Phil Rogers chat you'll see something that caused me to do a double take.

Rogers said Rauch's strength was NOT velocity but I think location.

A guy 6-11 and he can't throw the ball 100 miles an hour?

Interesting.

Double A eh? I guess this means he won't be the 5th starter and remember what Gary Peters said in his WSI Interview about young pitchers. That in his opinion it's a mistake to bring up kids in mid season and expect them to perform possibly in a pennant race.

Lip

Dadawg_77
03-11-2003, 11:15 PM
Lip what concerns me and other is the injury he had has been a death sentence to pitchers. Hopefully this will go the way of UCL (Tommy John) and become a easy thing to come back from.

Daver
03-11-2003, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
if you re read the transcript of the Phil Rogers chat you'll see something that caused me to do a double take.

Rogers said Rauch's strength was NOT velocity but I think location.

A guy 6-11 and he can't throw the ball 100 miles an hour?



And Phil is correct,Rauch is not an overpowering pitcher,he is a finesse pitcher and always has been.

I'll take a starter with good control over a starter that relies strictly on heat everytime,Randy Johnson is a good example of this,he had the heat early in his career,but not much else,till he learned to pitch and throw a true breaking ball.

But then again I am not going out of my way to find the down side of every issue either.

Randar68
03-11-2003, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by daver
But then again I am not going out of my way to find the down side of every issue either.

*****!!!! I have now idea who you are talking about!?!?!?

I think this calls for a...




BLAH!

Hangar18
03-11-2003, 11:35 PM
I think its GOOD to find the downside and the Upside to a situation, esp as it pertains to our Sox. If we looked at only the positives, wouldnt we be looking thru Cubby Blue Colored Glasses all the time ?? how many years in a row do we hear those saps, and the media, declare this "could be the year".
cub fans, I laugh in your faces.....

kermittheefrog
03-12-2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by daver
But then again I am not going out of my way to find the down side of every issue either.

Post of the week? Comment of the week? Comment of whatever time period it's been since Lip man starting posting regularly?

Hey wasn't Lip banned from this board for a while?

jeremyb1
03-12-2003, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I think its GOOD to find the downside and the Upside to a situation, esp as it pertains to our Sox. If we looked at only the positives, wouldnt we be looking thru Cubby Blue Colored Glasses all the time ?? how many years in a row do we hear those saps, and the media, declare this "could be the year".
cub fans, I laugh in your faces..... i

i feel like i'm aware of the downside most of the time, its just not fun to talk about, especially in the spring. also the key is whether the downside is plausable or just overly pessimistic.

harwar
03-12-2003, 07:45 AM
I've been saying for almost a year that i think Rauch is way over-ated.When the dust clears,i believe he will be a good middle-relief guy.Been looking for E.Loiza to be no.5 all along.

Chisox_cali
03-12-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
*****!!!! I have now idea who you are talking about!?!?!?

I think this calls for a...




BLAH!

Man when was the last time you had a "Blah"?! :)

Lip Man 1
03-12-2003, 10:07 PM
Andrew:

Sorry my opinions bother you. Last I looked this was a free country and I don't use profanity on the boards so I don't see what you are objecting to.

I try to do my part for WSI, but if you think it isn't worth a damn, please let me know and I'll stop posting and writing for the site completely.

I'm sure you'd be more then willing to author over 40 columns and historical pieces in the next 15 months to make up the difference.

I'm sure the readers would find your statistical breakdowns and comparisons fasinating as well as your ability to immediately pronouce trades either good or stupid based purely on numbers.

So please let me know what you'd like me to do, I'll check with Pale Hose George and if he agrees you can be rid of me.

Lip

guillen4life13
03-12-2003, 10:25 PM
Will Rauch make the team? Any answers?

Lip Man 1
03-12-2003, 10:32 PM
Under "normal" circumstances I don't see how...he's had a bad spring.

However if Wright is hurt, what other realistic, proven, healthy choices do the Sox have?

It's like Manager Gandhi said last year when the media was asking him why Gary Glover remained in the rotation when he was getting pounded..."We don't have any other options."

I hope Jon can do it, the Sox could need him very badly. My only point (and others said the same thing) is that what harm would it cause to get more experienced starters on the roster?

Guys get hurt, guys have bad seasons...you need options.

Others felt that getting those type pitchers would hurt the development of the Sox pitchers that the organization is counting on in the future.

That's a lot to gamble on what could be (if Colon leaves) a one year window of opportunity.

We'll see what happens (and what the excuses will be if the team fails again.)

Lip

kermittheefrog
03-12-2003, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Andrew:

Sorry my opinions bother you. Last I looked this was a free country and I don't use profanity on the boards so I don't see what you are objecting to.

I try to do my part for WSI, but if you think it isn't worth a damn, please let me know and I'll stop posting and writing for the site completely.

I'm sure you'd be more then willing to author over 40 columns and historical pieces in the next 15 months to make up the difference.

I'm sure the readers would find your statistical breakdowns and comparisons fasinating as well as your ability to immediately pronouce trades either good or stupid based purely on numbers.

So please let me know what you'd like me to do, I'll check with Pale Hose George and if he agrees you can be rid of me.

Lip

Your opinions are uninformed and inconsistent. You try to spin everything in a negative manner and everyone can see that. You're just annoying.

Daver
03-12-2003, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Your opinions are uninformed and inconsistent. You try to spin everything in a negative manner and everyone can see that. You're just annoying.

Well Kermit,if I start banning everyone that can be considered annoying by any member whatsoever,I could probably end up with a memberlist of 0.

Or we could all just learn to get along.

:redneck

Iguana775
03-12-2003, 11:19 PM
Is it time for a group hug? lol

jeremyb1
03-12-2003, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Under "normal" circumstances I don't see how...he's had a bad spring.

However if Wright is hurt, what other realistic, proven, healthy choices do the Sox have?

It's like Manager Gandhi said last year when the media was asking him why Gary Glover remained in the rotation when he was getting pounded..."We don't have any other options."

I hope Jon can do it, the Sox could need him very badly. My only point (and others said the same thing) is that what harm would it cause to get more experienced starters on the roster?

Guys get hurt, guys have bad seasons...you need options.

Others felt that getting those type pitchers would hurt the development of the Sox pitchers that the organization is counting on in the future.

That's a lot to gamble on what could be (if Colon leaves) a one year window of opportunity.

We'll see what happens (and what the excuses will be if the team fails again.)

i feel like we've been through this lip. the sox did add depth by signing heredia and loaiza. that was about as many options as they had without signing pitchers to major league deals. if they had signed someone like rick helling or suppan to a major league deal they would've been forced to give that guy a spot in the rotation.

wright's injury (assuming it turns out to be anything at all) was more or less unforseeable. assuming wright would have been at full stregnth, we had four solid starters returning.

if we signed helling, he would've been the fifth starter and would have been good for about 200 innings and an era of five. that's certainly better than a subpar performance from a young pitcher like rauch in the fifth spot. however, the problem with your argument is that you assume its a given that a pitcher like rauch won't perform or that someone like wright will take a big step backward, which simply isn't the case.

we get into trouble in the very possible situation where helling is his usual below average, inning eating self and rauch is lights out in spring training and dominates charlotte to start the season. at that point its not an issue of developement, it becomes an issue of winning now. you clearly have a pitcher better than your fifth starter available and able to help you win more games yet you can't pitch him because you have a guy with a guaranteed contract in the fifth spot.

pitching depth is valuable in some cases but in most of those cases, teams have their best pitchers in the rotation, not relegated to another role and their depth comes in the form of younger guys that can be stashed in AAA or the pen and brought in to start in the event of an unexpected injury. no team acquires true, valuable depth by signing mediocre veterans to fill out their rotation blocking more talented players from competing for the same spot.

if wright is in fact injured, then we have to do something about it because we need a pitcher there but to insist we should of signed another veteran to be in the rotation for a situation like this is ridiculous because there was no way of forseeing a possible injury to wright.

Lip Man 1
03-13-2003, 12:28 AM
Jeremy it's called "insurance."

I was all for the signing of Loazia and Heredia. Loazia may prove to be a god send when all is said and done.

Heredia though has as many question marks as some of the Sox "can't miss kids," in that he's coming off an injury and didn't pitch in MLB last year.

I thought there were other options available at the time that should also have been looked at.

My opinion was (and is) that given all the variables in a 162 game season you can never have enough starting pitching. If guys don't cut it and they are veterans then you pay them off and let them go at the end of the spring. What have you lost besides some money?

Since Colon by all accounts (including Phil Rogers in his celebrity chat) is unlikely to be resigned, then what was the harm in delaying or stopping the progress of these "kids" by one season?

I'm sorry I don't see how spending another year in Charlotte or Birmingham is going to hurt these kids beyond repair.

One other factor in getting pitching early is the fact that the price wasn't as high.

Let's say Wright is actually hurt. Every GM will know about it before the day is out. When Kenny Williams calls them do you think they are just going to "give" away pitching?

It's no different then the trading deadline. The price of pitching goes up, way up.

I don't think it's going to be as easy as you might think to replace Wright if he is hurt.

and if Williams "can't" replace him? what then?? what do you do???

The Twins can't match the combo of Buehrle and Colon. However the Sox can't match the back end of the Twins rotation either.

The Twins won't have any 20 game winners but they might have five double digit winners. I don't think the Sox will be able to match that and that could make all the difference in the world come late September.

I just think it was a foolish risk NOT to expect the "unexpected" (which already seems to be happening.) especially with a window of opportunity being so small.

Just my opinion. We'll see how it plays out.

Lip

jeremyb1
03-13-2003, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy it's called "insurance."

I was all for the signing of Loazia and Heredia. Loazia may prove to be a god send when all is said and done.

Heredia though has as many question marks as some of the Sox "can't miss kids," in that he's coming off an injury and didn't pitch in MLB last year.

I thought there were other options available at the time that should also have been looked at.

My opinion was (and is) that given all the variables in a 162 game season you can never have enough starting pitching. If guys don't cut it and they are veterans then you pay them off and let them go at the end of the spring. What have you lost besides some money?

Since Colon by all accounts (including Phil Rogers in his celebrity chat) is unlikely to be resigned, then what was the harm in delaying or stopping the progress of these "kids" by one season?

I'm sorry I don't see how spending another year in Charlotte or Birmingham is going to hurt these kids beyond repair.

One other factor in getting pitching early is the fact that the price wasn't as high.

Let's say Wright is actually hurt. Every GM will know about it before the day is out. When Kenny Williams calls them do you think they are just going to "give" away pitching?

It's no different then the trading deadline. The price of pitching goes up, way up.

I don't think it's going to be as easy as you might think to replace Wright if he is hurt.

and if Williams "can't" replace him? what then?? what do you do???

The Twins can't match the combo of Buehrle and Colon. However the Sox can't match the back end of the Twins rotation either.

The Twins won't have any 20 game winners but they might have five double digit winners. I don't think the Sox will be able to match that and that could make all the difference in the world come late September.

I just think it was a foolish risk NOT to expect the "unexpected" (which already seems to be happening.) especially with a window of opportunity being so small.

Just my opinion. We'll see how it plays out.

i think you're missing my point. the issue isn't about developement as much as it is about winning games this season. if rauch puts it together he's better than someone like rick helling or even suppan this season. therefore, by blocking his path to the rotation we are hurting our ability to win games this season.

as for the "you can't have enough starting pitching" argument, i think it makes sense in theory. the problem is that owners (and ours in particular) do not like to pay players money to play for another team. if we couldn't pay kenny rogers two million what makes you think we could pay helling a million dollars and then simply cut him after spring training if rauch looked better?

finally, regarding the depth of the twins rotation, i think you're definately underestimating the back end of our rotation. considering the fact that wright showed no damage when given an mri it looks like right now we will have four starters that won at least 12 games last season and another that won 9. if you admit the front end of our rotation is better than the twins i don't see how their rotation can compete with ours based on your analysis.

even if wright does go down we still have nearly four pitchers who won in double digits last season and garland figures to improve on last season with better run support and another year of experience.

Randar68
03-13-2003, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy it's called "insurance."

I was all for the signing of Loazia and Heredia. Loazia may prove to be a god send when all is said and done.

Heredia though has as many question marks as some of the Sox "can't miss kids," in that he's coming off an injury and didn't pitch in MLB last year.

I thought there were other options available at the time that should also have been looked at.

My opinion was (and is) that given all the variables in a 162 game season you can never have enough starting pitching. If guys don't cut it and they are veterans then you pay them off and let them go at the end of the spring. What have you lost besides some money?

Since Colon by all accounts (including Phil Rogers in his celebrity chat) is unlikely to be resigned, then what was the harm in delaying or stopping the progress of these "kids" by one season?

I'm sorry I don't see how spending another year in Charlotte or Birmingham is going to hurt these kids beyond repair.

One other factor in getting pitching early is the fact that the price wasn't as high.

Let's say Wright is actually hurt. Every GM will know about it before the day is out. When Kenny Williams calls them do you think they are just going to "give" away pitching?

It's no different then the trading deadline. The price of pitching goes up, way up.

I don't think it's going to be as easy as you might think to replace Wright if he is hurt.

and if Williams "can't" replace him? what then?? what do you do???

The Twins can't match the combo of Buehrle and Colon. However the Sox can't match the back end of the Twins rotation either.

The Twins won't have any 20 game winners but they might have five double digit winners. I don't think the Sox will be able to match that and that could make all the difference in the world come late September.

I just think it was a foolish risk NOT to expect the "unexpected" (which already seems to be happening.) especially with a window of opportunity being so small.

Just my opinion. We'll see how it plays out.

Lip

Nothing is ever good enough. A franchise who has shown little to no interest in spending money to win big games over the past 10 years (I know, more that that) goes out and gets a true #1 starter for Rocky Biddle and sign 2 decent veterans to minor league deals for the aforementioned "insurance".

However, because they didn't go off and sign a near 40 year old starter who will be average at best, to a major league contract for over a million bucks, they then have blown it....

It's the same no matter the situation. Piss and moan, Piss and moan. Get over your problems... The sun will still rise and set (although you'd be hard pressed to believe the world wasn't coming to an end after reading most of Lip's posts)...


Lip, can you just put this in your signature and save us the time of reading your diatribes????

:chickenlittle

Randar68
03-13-2003, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

Guys get hurt, guys have bad seasons...you need options.


The last thing Manual needs is more options...

kermittheefrog
03-13-2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by daver
Well Kermit,if I start banning everyone that can be considered annoying by any member whatsoever,I could probably end up with a memberlist of 0.

Or we could all just learn to get along.

:redneck

Jeez it's not my fault the guy can't go five posts without saying something foolish. With the ban thing I just wanted to remind him that sometimes if you're just going to be negative you won't do anything other than piss people off. It's hard to take Lip's comments seriously considering the tint of the glasses he's wearing.

hold2dibber
03-13-2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i think you're missing my point. the issue isn't about developement as much as it is about winning games this season. if rauch puts it together he's better than someone like rick helling or even suppan this season. therefore, by blocking his path to the rotation we are hurting our ability to win games this season.

as for the "you can't have enough starting pitching" argument, i think it makes sense in theory. the problem is that owners (and ours in particular) do not like to pay players money to play for another team. if we couldn't pay kenny rogers two million what makes you think we could pay helling a million dollars and then simply cut him after spring training if rauch looked better?

Two points. First, I'm pretty sure Helling signed a minor league deal. But I'm not positive. In any event, I think Lip's point, with which I tend to agree, is that someone like Helling or Rogers would have given better depth both in quality (I'd take either of those guys over Heredia in a heartbeat) and quantity. While the Sox might be in a bit of an awkward situation at the start of the season if Rauch clearly outperformed those guys, the fact of the matter is, over the course of the season, the team is going to need more than 5 starting pitchers. It happens every single year. It's highly likely that more than 6 pitchers will be needed to start games over the course of the season. So if I'm a GM, I'm trying to load up (just like the Yankees have done) with 6 or 7 capable starters. What do you do if all of them are healthy and effective? You juggle a little. Maybe Rauch starts in AAA even though he's ready - he'll be here soon enough when someone gets hurt or is ineffective. Maybe Loaiza starts in the bullpen or AAA. Maybe Rauch or Helling goes in the bullpen. Who cares? These things happen EVERY year and you have to be prepared for them. They're not unforseeable - they're a given. I think the Sox did an okay job of being ready for it (with the signings of Loazia and Heredia), but they could have done better (e.g., Rogers and Helling).

FanOf14
03-13-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Jeez it's not my fault the guy can't go five posts without saying something foolish. With the ban thing I just wanted to remind him that sometimes if you're just going to be negative you won't do anything other than piss people off. It's hard to take Lip's comments seriously considering the tint of the glasses he's wearing.

What exactly has been so foolish that Lip has said? He may have a negatvie tone (personally, I see it as a realistic tone, but that's just my opinion), but more often then not, he tends to be correct. Why do you insist on telling everyone that either they are "foolish" or that they don't know what they are talking about inspite of what ever proof they bring to the table? Look, you handle stats better than anyone I know, but your ongoing arrogant attitude makes it difficult to read your posts, which is too bad since you write informative ones.

Randar68
03-13-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by FanOf14
What exactly has been so foolish that Lip has said? He may have a negatvie tone (personally, I see it as a realistic tone, but that's just my opinion), but more often then not, he tends to be correct. Why do you insist on telling everyone that either they are "foolish" or that they don't know what they are talking about inspite of what ever proof they bring to the table? Look, you handle stats better than anyone I know, but your ongoing arrogant attitude makes it difficult to read your posts, which is too bad since you write informative ones.


Every single thing Lip posts is negative. Realistic is a different characteristic altogether. He takes positives and puts effort into making them into negatives...

It gets old. fast.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the interviews and historical pieces and the time that goes into doing them.

dougs78
03-13-2003, 01:03 PM
Here is my view of how people reach their opinions and why I feel frustrated with some posters on this board.

First of all, we perceive a set of circumstances as our reality in the current moment. We arrive at the current moment armed only with past experiences and other beliefs. These circumstances are such things as the talent level of our players, the competence of our manager, past performance of players, past history of the organization, etc. Although these data may lead us to different opinions of the moment they are all, to a reasonable extent, based on the same data. For the sake of argument, lets call them facts. So these facts, (ie., Paul Konerko had a really good first half last year) are largely agreed upon.

The differences of opinion occur when we try to predict the future occurrences, based on these facts we perceive at the present moment. For instance, person 1 may look at Konerko’s first half performance and say, “he was injured in the second half, clearly the first half is the ‘real’ Konerko and what I should expect to see this year.” Person 2 may look at that same first half and say, “I think the first half was a fluke, Konerko showed his true colors in the second half last year and that is what I expect this year.” Person 3 may say, “Konerko had a good first half, but he has shown a tendency to go into funks throughout his career, so I expect him to have a few excellent months this year along with a few average to subpar months.” The list of possible predictions can vary from to absolute extremes (MVP on one end, a horrible season on the other) but mostly just clumps into a middle ground.

These are simply differences of opinion and we may debate the interpretations of these facts, and thus the conclusions they lead, but not their possibility. In the same way, we can have productive debates about the likelihood, that these various outcomes will occur. In our mind we are assigning likelihood estimates, such as I think its 2% likely that Konerko will win the MVP, et cetera. So we can argue over how likely we believe something to be, and the data that lead us to that belief. The process is fun and informative.

However, what I truly dislike is when people refuse to even admit that certain possibilities exist. I’m perfectly fine with someone believing very strongly that Konerko will have a great season, but what truly frustrates me is when they refuse to even acknowledge that the opposite may be true. That they will not even admit that it is a possibility, no matter how small, that he will simply have a poor season for whatever reason. This to me is the difference between optimism, pessimism and realism. A realistic person may take into account all the possibilities and find the one he deems most likely and defend it. An optimistic person refuses to see the negative possibilities and instead focuses mostly on “best-case scenarios.” Conversely, a pessimist refuses to acknowledge the possible positive outcomes and instead focuses only on the “worst-case scenarios.”

To tie this back into this thread, I really feel frustrated and somewhat annoyed with a lot of LipMan’s posts because I feel he is dwelling solely on one side of the possibility spectrum. I feel that most posters look a the current conditions and willingly admit to the range of possibilities, but yet still can defend their opinions on why their prediction is most likely in their eyes. Lip, I have no problem if you really believe that many of the White Sox will have bad years or that some of the negative predictions are actually more (even much more) likely in your view. What I do have an issue with is your seeming refusal to even admit that perhaps there are more possibilities that you are considering. This is precisely what Jeremy is saying when he talks about how Rauch, MAY have a better season than Rogers, Helling, Suppan, et al, could ever have. All he is asking for is you to admit that this scenario is possible….not that it is probable. There is a huge difference between these things. I believe that is the exact problem the Kermit and Randar have as well with your posts.

Sorry to make this so long and sorry to pick on Lip only, because I think many people do the same thing also, in both directions, but its something that I felt I needed to express. I really feel that if this is kept in mind it will help us to avoid these digressions into name calling and personal attacks in the future.

kermittheefrog
03-13-2003, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
What exactly has been so foolish that Lip has said? He may have a negatvie tone (personally, I see it as a realistic tone, but that's just my opinion), but more often then not, he tends to be correct. Why do you insist on telling everyone that either they are "foolish" or that they don't know what they are talking about inspite of what ever proof they bring to the table? Look, you handle stats better than anyone I know, but your ongoing arrogant attitude makes it difficult to read your posts, which is too bad since you write informative ones.

I don't think it's very realistic to always spin things negatively and I feel like that's what Lip does. Honestly, how often do you think I tell posters that they are foolish? I see how you could be upset with some of things I say, and I'm working on it. Sometimes it's hard to be on the right side of being opinionated and being a jerk, especially on a message board when there is only text and no personality behind it. I'm a lot more docile in person. I wouldn't be surprised if Lip man is a good guy in person too. Even so it's not like I go around calling people idiots on the board. I definitely have respect for others opinions, I'm sorry if it doesn't show sometimes.

The reason I called Lip foolish is because I feel like his constant negativity and inability to see the positive side of things taints his opinion.

FanOf14
03-13-2003, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
Honestly, how often do you think I tell posters that they are foolish? I see how you could be upset with some of things I say, and I'm working on it.

The reason I called Lip foolish is because I feel like his constant negativity and inability to see the positive side of things taints his opinion.

I understand your view, and I don't think you are a jerk or anything of the sort, but there is a tendency in your posts to be condescending and arrogant (it's all about the delivery - something I am still learning as well!), rather than a direct hit, so to speak. Like I said, your posts are very interesting (especially because I am an engineer who really gets into statistics), but there are times when then can get difficult to read.

kermittheefrog
03-13-2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by FanOf14
I understand your view, and I don't think you are a jerk or anything of the sort, but there is a tendency in your posts to be condescending and arrogant (it's all about the delivery - something I am still learning as well!), rather than a direct hit, so to speak. Like I said, your posts are very interesting (especially because I am an engineer who really gets into statistics), but there are times when then can get difficult to read.

A good delivery is tough to get down, do you know how many hours Buehrle had to put in to perfect his?

FanOf14
03-13-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
A good delivery is tough to get down, do you know how many hours Buehrle had to put in to perfect his?

LMAO! :D: Like I said, I think delivery is something alot of us need to work on, but bringing up another point that was mentioned by you, when it's just text, things can get misconstrued easily.

joecrede
03-13-2003, 02:45 PM
Why do I get the feeling that pretty soon we'll be seeing Anti/Pro-Kermit and Anti/Pro-Lip threads? :D:

My problem isn't being critical of management's decisions, it's questioning whether or not they want to win.

Dadawg_77
03-13-2003, 02:51 PM
To me this is an onshoot of the flat earth society vs stathead debate on this board.

jeremyb1
03-13-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Two points. First, I'm pretty sure Helling signed a minor league deal. But I'm not positive. In any event, I think Lip's point, with which I tend to agree, is that someone like Helling or Rogers would have given better depth both in quality (I'd take either of those guys over Heredia in a heartbeat) and quantity. While the Sox might be in a bit of an awkward situation at the start of the season if Rauch clearly outperformed those guys, the fact of the matter is, over the course of the season, the team is going to need more than 5 starting pitchers. It happens every single year. It's highly likely that more than 6 pitchers will be needed to start games over the course of the season. So if I'm a GM, I'm trying to load up (just like the Yankees have done) with 6 or 7 capable starters. What do you do if all of them are healthy and effective? You juggle a little. Maybe Rauch starts in AAA even though he's ready - he'll be here soon enough when someone gets hurt or is ineffective. Maybe Loaiza starts in the bullpen or AAA. Maybe Rauch or Helling goes in the bullpen. Who cares? These things happen EVERY year and you have to be prepared for them. They're not unforseeable - they're a given. I think the Sox did an okay job of being ready for it (with the signings of Loazia and Heredia), but they could have done better (e.g., Rogers and Helling).

if helling was a minor league signing it wouldn't have hurt since you can never have enough options. however, it didn't seem necessary at the time since we had loaiza who's better and wright's injury was unexpected. however, assuming rauch is healthy i still think he's better than helling although i guess he's not quite as much of a sure thing.

another thing to consider is money. like it or not apparently the chairman does have a budget with less than two million remaining. had helling made the roster he'd make about a million more than rauch tying our hands some when it comes to making deals later in the season.

the issue with rogers wasn't an issue of not needing him. the only reason he wasn't signed was because there wasn't enough money. i can understand blocking rauch in favor of rogers but not necessarily in favor of helling.

if money was not an issue we would've signed rogers and if helling was a minor league signing we might've signed him too. unfortunately money is a big deal and does tie our hands.

Lip Man 1
03-13-2003, 11:19 PM
To one and all:

Thanks for the support and the constructive critiscism. I can take opinions as long as they are not personal (and I think everyone will admit that sometimes they do cross the line about me and my profession)

Frankly my perception of the Sox has been shaped by 42 years of mostly sub standard baseball and that includes players as well as owners.

I look at the negative (and freely admit this) because I haven't seen a hell of a lot of positive in my lifetime in regards to this organization.

When you keep getting bashed in the head and heart by things that take place including some of the most bizarre, unexpected and totally unbelieveable happenings, that becomes the expected norm. (Please feel free to look through my four part "Important Dates In White Sox History timeline and you'll understand what I mean.)

From the appendix attack to Dick Donovan, to Joe Cunningham breaking his collarbone, from the final week meltdown in 1967, to the 83 ALCS, from the White Flag trade, to the pitching injuries in the 2nd half of 2000, this franchise always finds a way to blow it. It can't be helped...it's fate or the Black Sox Curse or something. I can't explain it.

I am the first guy to wish that somehow, someway, the Sox can find a way to pull it off but until it actually happens, I can't buy into that philosophy.

Sorry, that's the way I am. I can't see how Jon Rauch for example is going to become the next Randy Johnson or even win 10 games. Can it happen... of course it can. But the odds are tremendous that it won't. It's very hard for an experienced pitcher to win 10 games, to expect a rookie to do that goes along the lines of the fantastic.

I'll try to tone down my "negativism" perhaps by wording things differently. Maybe that will satisfy you.

Finally for Randar, you mentioned my comments from last year and your famous "sky is falling" picture. An 81-81 record I think showed that the franchise had (and still has) a number of question marks. Funny that by June other posters were ripping this club far worse then I ever did in April.

With respect I'd have to say a number of us had a better perception of the type of team the Sox were putting out in 02 then others. The results bore that out.

I hope they can at least have a winning record this season. I hope they can win the division but I'll also say it won't surprise me if they don't. These are the White Sox after all, and Dan Wright's situation may be the first of the "bad karma."

Lip

Daver
03-13-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1



I'll try to tone down my "negativism" perhaps by wording things differently. Maybe that will satisfy you.

Finally for Randar, you mentioned my comments from last year and your famous "sky is falling" picture.

I don't know that you need to satisfy anyone here,this is a forum that is open to debate and opinion,and no two opinions are the same,if you feel that changing the wording in your posts is justified,so be it,but don't think you are being forced to do so,who do you have to "satisfy"?

As far as the picture you are referring to,don't blame Randar,I had the staff graphic artist here make that for me,at my request,for use when it seemed approiate.Its use is at the discretion of the poster however.....

:)