PDA

View Full Version : Updated Trade Info...


THE_HOOTER
07-04-2003, 12:57 AM
According to Ken Rosenthal of the Sporting News, the Orioles have rejected a deal that was Konerko for Sidney Ponson.

This HAS to be the trade we have been waiting to hear about.

So, lets just go with what we have for now.

siugrad25
07-04-2003, 01:00 AM
If this was 'the trade,' I guess I'm not too disappointed that it didn't go through. I might be in the minority that still believes in Konerko and how important he can be to the White Sox this year. The home run against the Twinkies Wednesday was clutch, and even though we haven't seen that from him much (if at all) this season, he can play a key role in the last three months of the season. Ponson is a nice pitcher to have, but there's got to be others out there that might be better right for the picking.

Nellie_Fox
07-04-2003, 01:09 AM
There is still the problem of enough playing time for Thomas, Daubach and Konerko. There is an overload of first baseman/dh types.

Frank should be in there every day. Do you platoon Konerko and Daubach for the remaining job?

Saracen
07-04-2003, 04:01 AM
The glut of 1B/DH types is a real concern. I think I'd rather stick with Konerko than Daubach. Konerko may have been sucking all year, but he's a real team guy. I think trading him would really take a lot out of the soul of this team, just like trading Manos would.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-04-2003, 09:06 AM
I find it interesting that this news confirms the Sox are trying to unload Konerko. His legions of defenders are having an ever more difficult time explaining exactly why this guy deserves playing time, or his new boxcar salary contract.

The Sox are willing to admit their mistake, and they are the ones who spent the money.

WillieHarris12
07-04-2003, 09:28 AM
I'd rather keep Konerko and go with a four man rotation than add Ponson. Use Wright in meaningless games, like against Tampa or Detroit. Then use Konerko at 1st every 3 games. It could work.

Paulwny
07-04-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by WillieHarris12
I'd rather keep Konerko and go with a four man rotation than add Ponson. Use Wright in meaningless games, like against Tampa or Detroit. Then use Konerko at 1st every 3 games. It could work.

At this point of the season there are no meaningless games unless you're in 1st place far ahead of the pack or totally out of play-off possibilities.

Jurr
07-04-2003, 09:45 AM
When the BBQ tastes good as it is, don't add more sauce. I think the new additions were enough, and maybe we could add one bullpen arm. That's it. I think we've addressed some major problems defensively and offensively. We need one guy to help out in the pen, and we're ready to go.

B. Diddy
07-04-2003, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
There is still the problem of enough playing time for Thomas, Daubach and Konerko. There is an overload of first baseman/dh types.

Frank should be in there every day. Do you platoon Konerko and Daubach for the remaining job?

Send Konerko down to the minors for two weeks to work on his swing. Wednesday night's homer notwithstanding, he isn't hitting well enough to justify being on this team right now. DH Daubach until PK starts to hit.

RKMeibalane
07-04-2003, 10:55 AM
Konerko probably should be given more time off, which he can devote exclusively to working on his swing. The Sox are in the middle of a pennant race, and they need their most effective players in the lineup every night. Of course, someone should try telling Jerry Manuel this. He now says that Konerko will get more playing time. Wasn't it just last week that he "benched" Paulie indefinitely?

:jerry

*TINKER* *TINKER* *TINKER*

kevingrt
07-04-2003, 11:09 AM
Hopefully that wasn't the trade, because I still think Paulie will get his stroke back and hit the baseball. Ponson isn't really a amazing pitcher. He is having a very good season, but I just don't think he can sustain the excellence and I don't think he can do great under the pressure.

Nails
07-04-2003, 11:15 AM
Not that Ponson isn't an excellent pitcher but isn't that overpaying just a little considering that SP is the one area that we're somewhat competant? Also, i'd just like to say the name "Todd Richie" for specific reason.

rmusacch
07-04-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Jurr
When the BBQ tastes good as it is, don't add more sauce. I think the new additions were enough, and maybe we could add one bullpen arm. That's it. I think we've addressed some major problems defensively and offensively. We need one guy to help out in the pen, and we're ready to go.

What part of Memphis do you live in? I live in Cordova.

B. Diddy
07-04-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Nails
Not that Ponson isn't an excellent pitcher but isn't that overpaying just a little considering that SP is the one area that we're somewhat competant? Also, i'd just like to say the name "Todd Richie" for specific reason.

We have two PROVEN stud starting pitchers and one who happens to be having a great half. Why not solidify your rotation with a great #4 guy?

How is trading Konerko overpaying when we already have a future HOFer who can play 1B? "Overpaying" is the $6.5 million a year that we're giving PK to hit .196.

What does Todd Ritchie have to do with this? You're not comparing him to Ponson, are you? Puh-leeez!

guillen4life13
07-04-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
We have two PROVEN stud starting pitchers and one who happens to be having a great half. Why not solidify your rotation with a great #4 guy?

How is trading Konerko overpaying when we already have a future HOFer who can play 1B? "Overpaying" is the $6.5 million a year that we're giving PK to hit .196.

What does Todd Ritchie have to do with this? You're not comparing him to Ponson, are you? Puh-leeez!

He is... and I think he has a good reason to. Ponson has a bad history when it comes to injuries. I don't think he's worth that gamble.

B. Diddy
07-04-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
He is... and I think he has a good reason to. Ponson has a bad history when it comes to injuries. I don't think he's worth that gamble.

Be specific. And how is it not worth a shot at the WS?

guillen4life13
07-04-2003, 11:52 AM
Here are the problems I have with Ponson:

He has never (until this year) posted an above .500 record. The highest amount of wins he has had in a season is 12, which was done in 1999, and he went 12-12 with a 4.71 ERA. This is his first season with an ERA below 4. As it was mentioned earlier, he tore his labrum a few years ago, and has made trips to the DL last year and the year before. He screams liability all over.

The difference in Loaiza is that he's always had really good stuff... it was just a matter of mixing up the pitches (using that change up, etc.).

Every time the Sox have faced Ponson, it has seemed like we've really rocked him.

Hell! On www.baseball-reference.com's page for this guy, the first person on the list of "similar pitchers" is Todd Ritchie!

guillen4life13
07-04-2003, 11:52 AM
Konerko is more valuable to this team than Ponson would be, in my opinion.

I'd much rather have a Kip Wells.

B. Diddy
07-04-2003, 12:02 PM
Here are the problems I have with Ponson:

He has never (until this year) posted an above .500 record. The highest amount of wins he has had in a season is 12, which was done in 1999, and he went 12-12 with a 4.71 ERA.

He's played his entire career for the Orioles, who have absolutely no bullpen and provide no run support. What do you expect?

As it was mentioned earlier, he tore his labrum a few years ago, and has made trips to the DL last year and the year before. He screams liability all over.

Kerry Wood tore up his elbow a "few years ago" as well. Like Wood, Ponson has recovered. What's your point?

The difference in Loaiza is that he's always had really good stuff... it was just a matter of mixing up the pitches (using that change up, etc.).

Exactly how is Loaiza's "stuff" better than Ponson's? Instead of spitting our platitudes, try backing up your claims with some hard evidence.

Hell! On www.baseball-reference.com's page for this guy, the first person on the list of "similar pitchers" is Todd Ritchie!

That means exactly jack ****. Garland has "similar pitches" to Kevin Brown, so he must be as good as Brown, right? Perhaps the difference is that Ponson can actually locate his pitches?

joecrede
07-04-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
Konerko is more valuable to this team than Ponson would be, in my opinion.

Giving Konerko to the O's for nothing to get out of the financial obligation would be a great deal for the Sox.

JRIG
07-04-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by joecrede


Giving Konerko to the O's for nothing to get out of the financial obligation would be a great deal for the Sox.


Indeed. I think Konerko's deal is going to come back to haunt the team big time. I thought that when he signed it and this year has done nothing to change my mind. Daubach could put up close to the same numbers and he's only getting paid $450,000. There should always be a surplus or 1B/DH types in our system an on the free agent market. Paulie, though I do like him, is not good enough to receive the kind of deal he got.

Iguana775
07-04-2003, 12:11 PM
The difference about Ponson this year is he finally learned how to pitch. Before he tried to overpower batters with is 95+ fastball. I saw a game where he was pitching and the announcers were saying how much better he is doing this year cause he is trusting his stuff and not just being a thrower.

Lip Man 1
07-04-2003, 12:26 PM
Gang:

Because it's the 4th of July I got up late. Obviously you folks beat me to this.

I got an e-mail from Ken this morning telling me the O's rejected the deal. He does not know if this means the deal is off or if the two sides will try to rework things. (at least he gave no indication to me either way in his e-mail)

Just a gut feeling...I don't think the Sox are done.

We'll see.

Lip

fuzzy_patters
07-04-2003, 12:27 PM
That means exactly jack ****. Garland has "similar pitches" to Kevin Brown, so he must be as good as Brown, right? Perhaps the difference is that Ponson can actually locate his pitches?

Nobody said Ponson has similar pitches to Ritchie. Baseball reference uses a formula to figure out which player, out of all the players in baseball history, has the most similar statistics to another player. Statistically, Ponson is almost identical to Ritchie. If you look at the statistics of the two players, it does not appear that Ponson locates his pitches any better than Ritchie does.

Garland by they way, throught the age of 22, is more similar to Virgil Cheeves of the 1920s Chicago Cubs than any other pitcher at that age.

JUGGERNAUT
07-04-2003, 12:31 PM
Kip is doing it again this year.
Sporting a mid 3 era.

What would you give to get him?
Young is as bad as Koney but near the end of his contract. So this could be a trade structured to help both teams:

Kip, Young, & Williams
for
Wright, Koney, & Koch

I saw William's #'s:
22 saves on a 6.40 era. 3 losses.
Apr: 0-1, 6 svs, 7.47 era
May: 0-1, 9 svs, 4.97 era
Jun: 0-0, 6 svs, 4.92 era
Jul: 0-1,.1 sv, 21.60 era

2002 Season
After converting 69 of 82 save opportunities during the previous three seasons, Mike Williams established himself as a premier closer in 2002. He shattered the Pirates' single-season save record of 34, set by Jim Gott in 1988. Williams saved 63.9 percent of the Pirates' wins, the second highest percentage in history behind Bryan Harvey, who saved 70.3 of Florida's victories during the Marlins' expansion season in 1993. Williams' 46 saves were the most ever by a reliever on a team with a losing record.


Pitching
After struggling as a starter with Philadelphia early in his career, Williams has thrived as a reliever by relying on his sharp-breaking slider, which he throws with a curveball grip. He's mastered the slider to the point where he adeptly changes speeds and breaks with it. His fastball averages 88 MPH and tops out at 91. He became more effective last season because he started throwing more fastballs to righthanded hitters, while using more changeups against lefthanders. Williams gives up his share of baserunners and can be painstakingly slow on the mound. However, he doesn't get rattled and has confidence to extricate himself from the toughest of jams. Williams' arm got tired late last season, and his ERA was 5.89 in the final two months.


Defense & Hitting
Like most closers, Williams doesn't do a good job of holding runners. Basestealers were successful on all six attempts last season. He is an adequate fielder who gets off the mound fairly quickly. He made only two plate appearances in 2002, striking out once and getting hit by a pitch. He has just two extra-base hits in 108 career at-bats.


2003 Outlook
Williams will be back as the Pirates' closer for a fifth straight season. While he doesn't overpower hitters like a classic closer, his slider often is unhittable and makes him a success. It may be too much to ask him to reach the 46-save plateau again. But he should get his fair share of opportunities this season, as the Pirates figure to improve on their win total of 72.

$ aspects:
Wright+Konerko+Koch = 10.825mil
Williams+Young+Wells = 10.5mil

So the $ is about the same.

Koch & Williams are about the same, though Koch's loss in velocity is more of a concern than Williams losing his velocity. The bottom line is that even with a 6.40 era right now, Williams still has 22 svs.

In terms of Young & Konerko, the Pirates are getting a much better O player in Konerko. The stats don't show it this year, but they do show it the past 3. The Pirates would get out of one of the worst decisions they made & have promise for the future & roughly the same cost. I think Young is a FA at the end of the year.

The difference betw Young & Konerko is about equal to Wells & Wright. Wright has shown moments of brilliance & might very well be able to put up Wells like #'s in the NL. Wells having now 1.5 yrs under his belt in mid 3 era is a true star. The pirates gain another yr of rfa on Wright in this trade.

guillen4life13
07-04-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
Here are the problems I have with Ponson:

He has never (until this year) posted an above .500 record. The highest amount of wins he has had in a season is 12, which was done in 1999, and he went 12-12 with a 4.71 ERA.

He's played his entire career for the Orioles, who have absolutely no bullpen and provide no run support. What do you expect?

As it was mentioned earlier, he tore his labrum a few years ago, and has made trips to the DL last year and the year before. He screams liability all over.

Kerry Wood tore up his elbow a "few years ago" as well. Like Wood, Ponson has recovered. What's your point?

The difference in Loaiza is that he's always had really good stuff... it was just a matter of mixing up the pitches (using that change up, etc.).

Exactly how is Loaiza's "stuff" better than Ponson's? Instead of spitting our platitudes, try backing up your claims with some hard evidence.

Hell! On www.baseball-reference.com's page for this guy, the first person on the list of "similar pitchers" is Todd Ritchie!

That means exactly jack ****. Garland has "similar pitches" to Kevin Brown, so he must be as good as Brown, right? Perhaps the difference is that Ponson can actually locate his pitches?

You really need to chill out, man.

Ponson has a mediocre track record, and a 3.96 ERA, which, while under four, is BARELY under 4. Sure, it will be the second best ERA in our rotation, but Buehrle seems to have really turned it around, and he looks like he's going to be the Buehrle we were expecting for the rest of the season (I would not at all be surprised if he went on to win 10 more games this year, putting him at 16 wins with an ERA that he could get under four quite easily.

Konerko is going to break out of his slump and be a very big part of this offense. Do you really think that Frank is going to be going on such a tear for the rest of the season? He'll probably get his average above .300, but I think that his last home run was the confidence boost he needed to get back to what he was.

I don't think Ponson is more valuable to this team than Konerko. That's just my opinion, okay?

B. Diddy
07-04-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Statistically, Ponson is almost identical to Ritchie. If you look at the statistics of the two players, it does not appear that Ponson locates his pitches any better than Ritchie does.


Ponson is 27 and Ritchie is 32. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it (i.e., KW traded for an aging pitcher who is beginning to develop arm problems).

Jurr
07-04-2003, 01:09 PM
It's funny you're mentioning Pirates players, since that's where I've been this entire week.

Kevin Young, part of your "deal" has been released by the Bucs this week.
Mike Williams is a mental case, blowing a lead the other night, then getting whacked for 2 runs in the 9th last night, and getting bailed out by a dp to end the game. He has admitted he is having major problems. This isn't an answer.
Kip Wells is extremely legit. He's great. I watched him live, and he's worth the price of admission.

B. Diddy
07-04-2003, 01:15 PM
You really need to chill out, man.

No, you need to learn how to interpret data.

Ponson has a mediocre track record, and a 3.96 ERA, which, while under four, is BARELY under 4. Sure, it will be the second best ERA in our rotation, but Buehrle seems to have really turned it around, and he looks like he's going to be the Buehrle we were expecting for the rest of the season (I would not at all be surprised if he went on to win 10 more games this year, putting him at 16 wins with an ERA that he could get under four quite easily.

Ponson's career ERA is equivalent to Loaiza's. If Ponson's not good enough to trade for, why are we relying on Loaiza, who's just as "bad"? If Ponson can go 10-5 with a 3.96 ERA (which is pretty good, by today's standards) on a horrible Orioles team, he can do even better on this team. After our #3 pitcher, our rotation is a bunch of question marks. Why not go after a guy like Ponson when we're in a playoff race? In case you hadn't noticed, we're still in 3rd place and have a full half season left to play.

Buehrle had BETTER turn it around, or we're screwed.

Konerko is going to break out of his slump and be a very big part of this offense. Do you really think that Frank is going to be going on such a tear for the rest of the season? He'll probably get his average above .300, but I think that his last home run was the confidence boost he needed to get back to what he was.

Frank is a two-time MVP, has won a batting title, and is the best hitter in the history of the franchise. He currently has a .428 OBP, 20 HRs, and 46 RBI. I'll put my money on Frank.

Konerko is NOT going to break out of him slump because he's not going to get the playing time to do so. We're making a run for first place here and can't afford to have PK in the lineup right now. Unless he accepts a 2-week demotion to AAA to work on his swing, he won't do anything more than pinch hit.

In this scenario, PK is not contributing to the success of this team. Trade him for another solid SP (Ponson, Washburn, etc.) or a better closer (Percival, perhaps?).

I don't think Ponson is more valuable to this team than Konerko. That's just my opinion, okay?

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. But it seems to me that your opinion is governed more by your allegiance towards PK than the best interests of this team.

I've watched this team try to win "the John Hart way" (i.e., trying to out-hit the opposition and rely on mediocre pitching) for the past 6 years and I'm sick and tired of it. I want a WS Championship and the only way for this team to accomplish that is by supplementing the pitching.

guillen4life13
07-04-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
You really need to chill out, man.

No, you need to learn how to interpret data.

Ponson has a mediocre track record, and a 3.96 ERA, which, while under four, is BARELY under 4. Sure, it will be the second best ERA in our rotation, but Buehrle seems to have really turned it around, and he looks like he's going to be the Buehrle we were expecting for the rest of the season (I would not at all be surprised if he went on to win 10 more games this year, putting him at 16 wins with an ERA that he could get under four quite easily.

Ponson's career ERA is equivalent to Loaiza's. If Ponson's not good enough to trade for, why are we relying on Loaiza, who's just as "bad"? If Ponson can go 10-5 with a 3.96 ERA (which is pretty good, by today's standards) on a horrible Orioles team, he can do even better on this team. After our #3 pitcher, our rotation is a bunch of question marks. Why not go after a guy like Ponson when we're in a playoff race? In case you hadn't noticed, we're still in 3rd place and have a full half season left to play.

Buehrle had BETTER turn it around, or we're screwed.

Konerko is going to break out of his slump and be a very big part of this offense. Do you really think that Frank is going to be going on such a tear for the rest of the season? He'll probably get his average above .300, but I think that his last home run was the confidence boost he needed to get back to what he was.

Frank is a two-time MVP, has won a batting title, and is the best hitter in the history of the franchise. He currently has a .428 OBP, 20 HRs, and 46 RBI. I'll put my money on Frank.

Konerko is NOT going to break out of him slump because he's not going to get the playing time to do so. We're making a run for first place here and can't afford to have PK in the lineup right now. Unless he accepts a 2-week demotion to AAA to work on his swing, he won't do anything more than pinch hit.

In this scenario, PK is not contributing to the success of this team. Trade him for another solid SP (Ponson, Washburn, etc.) or a better closer (Percival, perhaps?).

I don't think Ponson is more valuable to this team than Konerko. That's just my opinion, okay?

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. But it seems to me that your opinion is governed more by your allegiance towards PK than the best interests of this team.

I've watched this team try to win "the John Hart way" (i.e., trying to out-hit the opposition and rely on mediocre pitching) for the past 6 years and I'm sick and tired of it. I want a WS Championship and the only way for this team to accomplish that is by supplementing the pitching.

The difference between Loaiza and Ponson is that Loaiza sports a 2.18 ERA. On a recent survey conducted by SI, that asked all major league players many questions about other players, parks, etc. For the question, "Who does the least with the most talent?", two White Sox players were in the top 10 for the answer. The answers lead me to believe the poll was conducted at the beginning of the year.. but the two players were Loaiza and Thomas.

Thomas is a 2 time MVP, correct. When did he win those MVP's? 9 and 10 years ago, respectively. He was deserving of the award in 2000, I'll grant you that.


You say I have a blind allegiance towards Konerko? My favorite player on this team, ever since I became a fan, has been Frank. Before I became big into baseball, I always liked Ozzie Guillen a lot. I don't think I've ever been a "blind" supporter of Konerko at all. I just think that he's worth much more than Ponson is to this team. I'd rather trade Daubach. And I've never been against the idea of Konerko going back down to AAA to work on his swing.


I have an idea, since this seems like it's getting a little heated. I'll concede to you if Konerko has a bad series against the D-Rays (who've actually been hot lately, doing a number on the BoSox). If he has a good series, I'm going to stand by what I've said so far in this thread. If he has a bad series, I'll concede to you. Deal?

TornLabrum
07-04-2003, 01:52 PM
This is the American League with the DH. In this league an ERA under 4.00 qualifies you as one of the top starting pitchers in the league. In Ponson's case, he ranks #17 among AL starters.

Once again, this is not 1968.

B. Diddy
07-04-2003, 02:14 PM
The difference between Loaiza and Ponson is that Loaiza sports a 2.18 ERA. On a recent survey conducted by SI, that asked all major league players many questions about other players, parks, etc. For the question, "Who does the least with the most talent?", two White Sox players were in the top 10 for the answer. The answers lead me to believe the poll was conducted at the beginning of the year.. but the two players were Loaiza and Thomas.

IIRC, if we read the same poll, Loaiza did the most with the least talent. Loaiza hasn't put together a stellar full season once in his career. Are you willing to risk a potential trip to the WS that he will this year? I'm not.

Thomas is a 2 time MVP, correct. When did he win those MVP's? 9 and 10 years ago, respectively. He was deserving of the award in 2000, I'll grant you that.

And the batting title was 5 1/2 years ago.

Frank was also injured for the last 1/3 or so of the '99 season, tore his tricepts in '01, and was still recovering last year (it takes about two full years to heal, not unlike a torn knee ligament). If OBP and slugging % (and their sum, OPS) are the most accurate measurements of how good a hitter is, we can compare Frank's '98, '99, '01, and '02 seasons to PK's career numbers...

Frank (average of '98, '99, '01, '02): 834
Paulie (career): 808

So, even when Frank is slumping and/or injured, his OPS is still significantly higher than PK's.

BTW, 2000 was Frank's best (in his opinion) season. That was the last time that he was fully healthy prior to this year. He's far from washed up.

You say I have a blind allegiance towards Konerko? My favorite player on this team, ever since I became a fan, has been Frank. Before I became big into baseball, I always liked Ozzie Guillen a lot. I don't think I've ever been a "blind" supporter of Konerko at all. I just think that he's worth much more than Ponson is to this team. I'd rather trade Daubach. And I've never been against the idea of Konerko going back down to AAA to work on his swing.

Well, if it's not blind allegiance to PK, then you're obviously not familiar with certain aspects of baseball...

If you believe that PK is worth more to this team than a solid SP like Ponson or Washburn, you're unlikely familiar with the axiom that pitching wins championships. Just ask the Yankees. Or, on the other end, ask the Indians or Rangers.

We don't go into a three-man rotation until the playoffs, a good 2 1/2 months away (and, and BTW, we're still in 3rd place!). A solid SP like Ponson or Washburn to fill our #4 spot will help us win more games, help us get into the playoffs, and help us win in the playoffs more than substituting Konerko for Daubach. In fact, that substitution would hurt us more than help us right now.

And you're obviously not taking the financial compenent into consideration. Why trade Daubach, who's making $450,000, instead of Konerko, who's making $6.5 million this season? Wouldn't it be a better idea to unload some salary and have $3 million or so left over to compensate the guy we're trading for?

I have an idea, since this seems like it's getting a little heated. I'll concede to you if Konerko has a bad series against the D-Rays (who've actually been hot lately, doing a number on the BoSox). If he has a good series, I'm going to stand by what I've said so far in this thread. If he has a bad series, I'll concede to you. Deal?

One series, especially, against a piss-poor team like TB, isn't going to prove anything. There's one reason that PK is playing in this series: KW is trying to get Paulie's swing back so that he can increase his value for when he shops him to other teams.

guillen4life13
07-04-2003, 02:55 PM
Listen: You just said Washburn and implied that I thought Washburn was Ponson's equal. They are two very different pitchers, and while Washburn is having a down year as of now, I would trade him for Konerko in a heartbeat. Don't imply that I wouldn't trade Konerko for Washburn.

There are two camps regarding Loaiza. One camp alleges that his season so far, is a fluke, and that he will have a sub .500 record for the second half of the season with an ERA over 5. The other camp thinks that this is no fluke, and that he can sustain this for the course of the season. You, apparently, are in the first camp. I am in the second. No one can prove his point until the season is finished.

I think that a series can be a judge of whether he has his swing back or not. Even if it is only 12-15 AB's, it can show whether he's confident, healthy, and so on. If he looks like he has no idea of what is going on up there, then so be it. A series, as far as my experience goes, can be a very good judge of whether someone has broken out of a slump or not. I've seen Konerko break out of his slumps before, and usually when it happens, he's a very formidable hitter.

Now, I'll be up front and tell you that you have many years of experience on me, since I never became die hard until mid '2000 or so. You've been a fan since before I was born.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-04-2003, 03:00 PM
In the entire recorded history of baseball, has there EVER been a team that couldn't use at least one more pitcher? You can never have enough pitching.

Acquiring Ponson accomplishes two important goals:

1. He becomes insurance against a regular getting injured or Loaiza returning to his usual mediocre form.

2. He saves the Sox from paying the remainder of Paul Konerko's salary. That opens up opportunities to sign ballplayers we really need rather than a 1B/DH who can't hit .200.

Acquiring Ponson straight up for Konerko would be an absolute steal for the Sox. If we're to believe the rumors, the O's quashed the deal because the Sox refused to add prospects. To unload Konerko-- easily the team's most expensive spare part-- and get something as valuable as a starting pitcher, I would gladly toss in a B or C prospect. I wouldn't blink at pullin' the trigger on that deal.

guillen4life13
07-04-2003, 03:54 PM
Whatever. I'll shut up now.

B. Diddy
07-04-2003, 04:05 PM
Listen: You just said Washburn and implied that I thought Washburn was Ponson's equal. They are two very different pitchers, and while Washburn is having a down year as of now, I would trade him for Konerko in a heartbeat. Don't imply that I wouldn't trade Konerko for Washburn.

That fact that you wouldn't trade PK for Ponson in this situation suggests that you would be a very poor general manager.

There are two camps regarding Loaiza. One camp alleges that his season so far, is a fluke, and that he will have a sub .500 record for the second half of the season with an ERA over 5. The other camp thinks that this is no fluke, and that he can sustain this for the course of the season. You, apparently, are in the first camp. I am in the second. No one can prove his point until the season is finished.

History suggests that it's a fluke. If nobody can predict the future, wouldn't it make more sense to be cautious and pick up the AL's #16 ranked starter for a guy who (1) we're winning right now without, (2) is hitting .196 this season and has been in a slump for almost a full year, and (3) we're paying an obnoxious $6.5 million for this year and that we'll owe an additional $12 million over the next two years? If he can be replaced buy a guy who's grossly outperforming him and costing us a mere $450,000, it's a no-brainer.

Since you started paying attention to the Sox in 2000, you'll probably remember what happened to Cal Eldred, James Baldwin, Mike Sirotka, and Jim Parque prior to the playoffs. They were INJURED . As a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of that, we were SWEPT in the first round of the playoffs. Do you think that perhaps we may have benefitted from having an extra healthy starting pitcher around then? Don't you think that it might be a good idea for the Sox to try to avoid such a situation this year???

I think that a series can be a judge of whether he has his swing back or not. Even if it is only 12-15 AB's, it can show whether he's confident, healthy, and so on. If he looks like he has no idea of what is going on up there, then so be it. A series, as far as my experience goes, can be a very good judge of whether someone has broken out of a slump or not. I've seen Konerko break out of his slumps before, and usually when it happens, he's a very formidable hitter.

But right now, he SUCKS. Even if he does regain his form, he's still expendable unless he can play 3B or C.

This team's #4 and #5 pitchers are iffy at best and we already have two other 1B/DH players who have hit well in the past and are hitting well now. One is a future HOF stud. The other is costing us almost nothing. PK isn't hitting at all and is costing the team a hell of a lot of money. We also have SIX players in the lineup who are .270+ and 20+ HR hitters in a full season (Frank, Mags, Everett, Lee, Valentin, and Daubach).

Stop sniffing glue for a minute and think about that.

guillen4life13
07-04-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
Stop sniffing glue for a minute and think about that. [/B]

***?!?! What the hell do you think you're gonna accomplish by saying that to me?

B. Diddy
07-04-2003, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
***?!?! What the hell do you think you're gonna accomplish by saying that to me?

Perhaps I'll knock some sense into you.

cornball
07-04-2003, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
In the entire recorded history of baseball, has there EVER been a team that couldn't use at least one more pitcher? You can never have enough pitching.

Acquiring Ponson accomplishes two important goals:

1. He becomes insurance against a regular getting injured or Loaiza returning to his usual mediocre form.

2. He saves the Sox from paying the remainder of Paul Konerko's salary. That opens up opportunities to sign ballplayers we really need rather than a 1B/DH who can't hit .200.

Acquiring Ponson straight up for Konerko would be an absolute steal for the Sox. If we're to believe the rumors, the O's quashed the deal because the Sox refused to add prospects. To unload Konerko-- easily the team's most expensive spare part-- and get something as valuable as a starting pitcher, I would gladly toss in a B or C prospect. I wouldn't blink at pullin' the trigger on that deal.

Well we will have to see about this deal, or a similar deal closer to the deadline but your absolutely right George....in any sport defense wins championships and pitching is the first line of "D" in baseball.

guillen4life13
07-05-2003, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
Perhaps I'll knock some sense into you.

Perhaps someone needs to see the WSI Code of Conduct (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/MainPages/ConductCode.htm)

You see, I've been warned before (for using very foul language in a post)... and I happen to like these boards, so I tend to follow the code of conduct. Looks like you're somewhat new here, so you might want to look at this, because I'm sure voodoo or any other mods/administrators haven't seen this, and if/when they do, they will probably warn you as they did me.

I've copied and pasted the section that is pertinent as of now:

Though we encourage members to engage in healthy debates, we do not condone personal attacks on members . Ideas can be disputed or challenged, but attacks on a personal level are unacceptable and if they are brought to the attention of the staff, will be dealt with accordingly. Ideas can be attacked, but individuals cannot.


I'm not reporting you, but I'm just warning you that if they see your posts, they will warn you (and it's not like they've not done it before).


And as I said before... chill out.

SluggersAway
07-05-2003, 01:00 AM
The bottom line is...we are not going to get anywhere closer to October ball with the #4, #5 pitchers and the current bullpen, we have to shake it up a little and solidify. We'll put runs up on the board, but we can't let the opponent do the same.

guillen4life13
07-05-2003, 01:25 AM
Let me clear this all up. I understand just about everything everyone has said, and here is the bottom line on my opinion. I don't think very highly of Sidney Ponson, and I think there are many better alternatives than him, and if we were to get someone better, I would be willing to trade Paul Konerko. Jarrod Washburn? Yes. Kip Wells? Yes. Sidney Ponson? No. He hasn't a proven track record, and, although I haven't seen him pitch this year, of what I've seen in the past, he has not been the greatest pitcher. He has been rocked, every time I've been able to watch a game with him as the starting pitcher. Even before the Sox acquired Loaiza, I had seen him show flashes of brilliance. I've seen Kip do some pretty amazing things also. I've seen Wright do amazing things. I've seen Washburn do really amazing things. Ponson? No.

Loaiza cost us no players.
Ponson will cost us Konerko+prospect(s). Why am I against that? Konerko (who has allegedly been in a slump for a full year, but as someone pointed out earlier in the thread, his second half numbers weren't all that bad last year), is almost guaranteed to break out of this slump. Now, if we find him to not be healthy, then that's a different matter altogether. Konerko is, what, 27 years old (same age as Ponson), and has already had quite a few damn good seasons in which he contributed to the team in big ways. What I'm seeing here is a bunch of people turning on him like many of you turned on Frank last year. Frank turned himself around and this team is riding him now. It's ironic how, at that time, I supported him, as did many other people. A very good amount of people did not support him. When he turned himself around, those people mysteriously disappeared from these boards.

We have a very formidable offense already. I know. But anything can be made better.

I'll honestly tell you that you, B.Diddy, and George have done a bit to convince me with your hard evidence. I'll also say that I haven't been able to back myself up as much, but I just have to say this: Konerko is worth more than Ponson (and no, B.Diddy, I've never gotten high off of glue, nor have I done lines of blow, or whatever other accusations you might have for me), because he's a huge clubhouse presence, and he's a role model. Almost everyone has acknowledged that PK has been working his ass off to get back to his standards. That sets an example to the other players. It shows them that someone is working through his struggles, and he's not giving up. That's some of the best motivation one can get. PK's work ethic is something that I'm postive has a tremendous positive effect on the rest of this team. Right now, his numbers aren't showing the effort.

I'm tired of seeing this team make trades that end up biting us right in the ass. This trade (to me) reeks of it. I don't think this is the answer that will put us over the top. I think Wells would be a good fit here, especially since he knows Don Cooper (at least I'm about positive he does).

I just have a bad feeling about Ponson. Don't kill me now, ok?

Brian26
07-05-2003, 01:32 AM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
Since you started paying attention to the Sox in 2000, you'll probably remember what happened to Cal Eldred, James Baldwin, Mike Sirotka, and Jim Parque prior to the playoffs. They were [B]INJURED . As a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of that, we were SWEPT in the first round of the playoffs. Do you think that perhaps we may have benefitted from having an extra healthy starting pitcher around then? Don't you think that it might be a good idea for the Sox to try to avoid such a situation this year???

Not to throw gasoline on the fire here...

But, we didn't get swept in the playoffs in 2k because of our starting pitching. Parque and Baldwin pitched their asses off and should have won their games. Sirotka, although we didn't know it at the time, was pitching injured, and he still pitched a decent game. We lost those 3 games because our bullpen failed and we didn't get any timely hits. The starters in all 3 games pitched well enough to win though.

Brian26
07-05-2003, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by SluggersAway
The bottom line is...we are not going to get anywhere closer to October ball with the #4, #5 pitchers and the current bullpen, we have to shake it up a little and solidify.

Garland is pitching like a man possessed. I think we're solid right now with #1-4. The bullpen does need some tweeking though.

B. Diddy
07-05-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
Perhaps someone needs to see the WSI Code of Conduct (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/MainPages/ConductCode.htm)

You see, I've been warned before (for using very foul language in a post)... and I happen to like these boards, so I tend to follow the code of conduct. Looks like you're somewhat new here, so you might want to look at this, because I'm sure voodoo or any other mods/administrators haven't seen this, and if/when they do, they will probably warn you as they did me.

I've copied and pasted the section that is pertinent as of now:




I'm not reporting you, but I'm just warning you that if they see your posts, they will warn you (and it's not like they've not done it before).


And as I said before... chill out.

If "stop sniffing glue" is offensive, you must have one hell of a glass jaw. You fail to recognize that a starting pitcher with a 4.0 ERA is woth quite a bit and I tell you to stop sniffing glue... and then you threaten to "tell one me."

Go ahead and tell on me.

Since you obviously can't handle criticsm, I won't be talking to you anymore.

B. Diddy
07-05-2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
Not to throw gasoline on the fire here...

But, we didn't get swept in the playoffs in 2k because of our starting pitching. Parque and Baldwin pitched their asses off and should have won their games. Sirotka, although we didn't know it at the time, was pitching injured, and he still pitched a decent game. We lost those 3 games because our bullpen failed and we didn't get any timely hits. The starters in all 3 games pitched well enough to win though.

I'm not sure about Parque, but Baldwin WAS pitching hurt in the playoffs that year. I don't remember what was wrong with him, but I do remember him only being able to go 5 or 6 innings. He pitched a hell of a game, BTW. So, Baldwin, Sirotka, and Eldred (our top 3 starters) were all pitching through injuries in the playoffs. In other words, injuries to starters killed us in the playoffs. You can't expect your bullpen to take 3-4 innings a game in the playoffs, especially when JM was already over-using guys like Wunsch that year (and, hey, he went on the DL for most of the following year... wonder why!). If our starting pitching was healthy and could've gone deeper into the game, that would've put less pressure on the 'pen.

I agree that our lack of offense vs. Seattle was also a big problem (especially Frank, who was trying to be Mark McGwire).

B. Diddy
07-05-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
So, Baldwin, Sirotka, and Eldred (our top 3 starters) were all pitching through injuries in the playoffs.

Oops, made a mistake. Eldred wasn't pitching at all. Wasn't Parque experiencing a dead arm during the latter part of that year (kind of a ridiculous question, as he could never make it through the 6th inning of any game)?

Brian26
07-05-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
I'm not sure about Parque, but Baldwin WAS pitching hurt in the playoffs that year. I don't remember what was wrong with him, but I do remember him only being able to go 5 or 6 innings. He pitched a hell of a game, BTW. So, Baldwin, Sirotka, and Eldred (our top 3 starters) were all pitching through injuries in the playoffs. In other words, injuries to starters killed us in the playoffs. You can't expect your bullpen to take 3-4 innings a game in the playoffs, especially when JM was already over-using guys like Wunsch that year (and, hey, he went on the DL for most of the following year... wonder why!). If our starting pitching was healthy and could've gone deeper into the game, that would've put less pressure on the 'pen.


Baldwin was definitely pitching hurt, and Eldred was hurt. Sirotka's injury was not known at the time, and Parque wasn't injured that we know of.

With that in mind, our starters still pitched well:

In game 3, Baldwin pitched 6 innings and gave up 3 hits and 1 run. He left with the game tied at 1-1. 6 innings pitched with only 1 run is a solid start. We lost that game because of our lack of offense and bullpen troubles (We lost 2-1).

In game 1, Parque pitched 6 innings and gave up 3 runs. He left with a 4-3 lead. We ended up losing that one 7-4 in 10 innings when the bullpen meltded down in the 10th, including Foulke (3 ER). We lost that game because of our lack of offense and bullpen troubles.

In game 2, Sirotka pitched 5 2/3 and gave up 3 earned runs. He left with a 3-2 lead in the 5th. The Sox ended up losing 5-2. Although this wasn't a quality start, per say, still it wasn't a bad pitching performance. Again, the offense was sleeping and the bullpen couldn't hold them.

If we had gone deeper in the playoffs, who knows what would have happened. It's all speculation at this point. However, I will never blame the 2000 playoff sweep to Seattle on the starting pitchers. They did their job in the series, whether they were injured or not. You can't expect them to go 8 or 9 innings in a game.

Lip Man 1
07-05-2003, 12:58 PM
Folks:

In game #1 the Sox scored FOUR EARLY RUNS.

What more do you expect in a playoff game against playoff pitchers? Eight?????

Give a stud pitcher four runs in a playoff game and IT'S OVER. A Clemens, Johnson, Schilling etc gets four runs and holds the other club to one or two.

The Sox did not have the pitching to win that series (although Baldwin pitched his ass off)

IF (there's that word again) the Sox win game #1 (like they should have) the pressure's immediately lowered and perhaps the hitters do an even better job the rest of the way.

IF the Sox win game #1 perhaps the entire complexion of that series is changed.

The hitters didn't lose game #1, Sox pitchers did.

Lip

Brian26
07-05-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

The hitters didn't lose game #1, Sox pitchers did.

Lip

Let's clarify the argument a little: The starting pitcher didn't lose game 1 for them. The bullpen lost it.

B. Diddy
07-05-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Baldwin was definitely pitching hurt, and Eldred was hurt. Sirotka's injury was not known at the time, and Parque wasn't injured that we know of.

With that in mind, our starters still pitched well:

In game 3, Baldwin pitched 6 innings and gave up 3 hits and 1 run. He left with the game tied at 1-1. 6 innings pitched with only 1 run is a solid start. We lost that game because of our lack of offense and bullpen troubles (We lost 2-1).

In game 1, Parque pitched 6 innings and gave up 3 runs. He left with a 4-3 lead. We ended up losing that one 7-4 in 10 innings when the bullpen meltded down in the 10th, including Foulke (3 ER). We lost that game because of our lack of offense and bullpen troubles.

In game 2, Sirotka pitched 5 2/3 and gave up 3 earned runs. He left with a 3-2 lead in the 5th. The Sox ended up losing 5-2. Although this wasn't a quality start, per say, still it wasn't a bad pitching performance. Again, the offense was sleeping and the bullpen couldn't hold them.

If we had gone deeper in the playoffs, who knows what would have happened. It's all speculation at this point. However, I will never blame the 2000 playoff sweep to Seattle on the starting pitchers. They did their job in the series, whether they were injured or not. You can't expect them to go 8 or 9 innings in a game.

You can't expect them to go 8 innings? I'm sorry, but if your starting pitchers can't pitch more than 6 innings in ANY game, that's going to put a hell of a strain on your bullpen. And, unless your 'pen is absolutely stacked with talent, you're going to lose those close games.

I'll admit that the bullpen coughed it up, but JM had been over-using them WAY too much that season (particularly Wunsch), especially later in the year when the starting pitching began wearing down.

I don't see how the lack of healthy starters here didn't contribute to this sweep.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-05-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Let's clarify the argument a little: The starting pitcher didn't lose game 1 for them. The bullpen lost it.

Let's clarify even further: The entire series lasted all of three games. Anybody who thinks Seattle's pitching was vastly superior to ours simply wasn't paying very close attention. The offensive hero for the Sox was the mighty Harold Baines, LMAO! Our hitters couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. That's why we lost three measly games. Had we played 25 games maybe it would have been different, but you don't get that many chances in the playoffs. In other words, "See ya, losers!"

Our #1 offense went stone cold in the playoffs and led to the sweep. With the possible exception of Lip, I'm pretty sure we've all agreed on this point about the '00 ALDS.

guillen4life13
07-05-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
If "stop sniffing glue" is offensive, you must have one hell of a glass jaw. You fail to recognize that a starting pitcher with a 4.0 ERA is woth quite a bit and I tell you to stop sniffing glue... and then you threaten to "tell one me."

Go ahead and tell on me.

Since you obviously can't handle criticsm, I won't be talking to you anymore.

No, you see here's the thing. I never threatened to tell on you. I was just telling you, that from my past experiences, I've been warned for making comments as you've made. Whether I was reported or not... I don't know. I haven't, nor have I had any intentions of reporting you. I just don't understand why you're so offensive about all of this stuff. That's why I keep saying, chill out. You don't have to get angry about everything I say, and maybe you will have to concede that, yes, I'm not as experienced as you with baseball, but that's also because you are quite a bit older than me, and you've been a fan since six years before I was born. Keep that in perspective. We're all trying to learn more about this sport, and I've learned almost everything from these boards and this site. I hate getting into verbal arguments on these boards because... they're no fun, and they aren't getting us anywhere. Debating with you is a way for me to learn more... and hopefully, for everyone else on these boards to learn more. Think of me as the stubborn kid who's a little thickheaded in certain situations.

Now, back to what this thread is about. I am not saying that a pitcher with a 4.0 ERA is not worth a lot. I think they are worth plenty. All I have said throughout, is that Ponson has never impressed me. I have also said that I haven't seen him pitch this year, so my perspective is quite a bit flawed. Of what I've seen in the past, he has not been a starter who deserves to be in a World Series caliber rotation. If we were to acquire Ponson, he would most likely take the 4th spot in the rotation (I don't think Garland is going to keep up this pitching streak he's been on). That's all my point is. You have much more evidence in your favor than me, and you've almost convinced me to agree with you with that evidence. But until I see Ponson pitch a full game, and see how well he does, this season, I will not be all that sure about trading Konerko for him. Secondly, I don't think the Sox would be able to get Baltimore to pay all of his contract. I also don't like the idea of giving a prospect on top of Konerko. Konerko for Ponson flat out is iffy to me because I've seen Konerko perform to his potential, and I haven't seen Ponson perform to his. Until I see Ponson, I'm not going to fully agree with you.

And again, I'm just trying to learn about this team and such from people who know more than me (and you are definitely one of those people). Fair enough? Can I request a truce?

Now regarding 2000, all of the playoff games (save one, IIRC) were played during the day, and unluckily, I had school until 3:30 (I was beginning Junior High). I became big into the team during the offseason between 2000 and 2001... right around the time they traded Siro for Wells.

B. Diddy
07-05-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I hate getting into verbal arguments on these boards because... they're no fun, and they aren't getting us anywhere. Debating with you is a way for me to learn more... and hopefully, for everyone else on these boards to learn more. Think of me as the stubborn kid who's a little thickheaded in certain situations.


My problems with you are twofold:

(1) You don't know what you're talking about (e.g., your implication that Loaiza is a significantly better pitcher than Ponson, despite their career ERAs being identical).

(2) You try to debate issues that you know little about using platitudes and opinions to support your arguments (e.g., "Konerko is much more valuable to this team than Ponson would be, IMO").

If you're going to debate on this web site, I would suggest either doing your homework before you start typing or backing down on an issue when somebody presents facts that overwhelm your argument. You don't respond to over 50% of the counter-points that I make because, at the very least, they strongly suggest that your argument is flawed. Instead, you make statements like, "Well, that's just my opinion, OK?"

If you're wrong, either admit your're wrong or don't post on that topic anymore. If you can't back up your arguments with facts and evidence, don't whine like a baby when someone calls you on your ignorance.

I'm here to discuss White Sox Baseball with knowledgeable, mature adults, not ignorant little kids who think that opinion is a suitable substitute for hard evidence. If you're incapable of debating like an adult, don't respond to any of my posts.

TornLabrum
07-05-2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
I'm here to discuss White Sox Baseball with knowledgeable, mature adults, not ignorant little kids who think that opinion is a suitable substitute for hard evidence. If you're incapable of debating like an adult, don't respond to any of my posts.

Okay, how about everybody dropping the personal stuff and arguing ideas!

Nellie_Fox
07-06-2003, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
I'm here to discuss White Sox Baseball with knowledgeable, mature adults, not ignorant little kids who think that opinion is a suitable substitute for hard evidence. If you're incapable of debating like an adult, don't respond to any of my posts. Hey, B. Diddy. Not only am I older than you, my kid is older than you. This post is out of line.

There are a lot of very young fans on this board. Young fans are more likely to react with emotion than logic. I remember when I was a kid, I ran around trying to get people to sign a petition to prevent the White Sox from trading Al Smith (the guy with the beer spilling on him in the famous photograph.) I thought everyone in a Sox uni was a hero.

Yes, fans are entitled to have an opinion that one player is of more value than another. There are intangibles that cannot be supported with statistics.

Calling someone an "ignorant little kid" is hardly the discussion of a mature adult. Lighten up.

VeeckAsInWreck
07-06-2003, 01:33 AM
I see that things have gotten a little out of hand on this thread, however I just wanted to say this about game 1 of the 2000 ALDS.

Keith Foulke blew that game, that's right, the same Foulke who everyone has been missing now that Koch is here. and let's see.... the next games he played were in Seattle to start the 2001 campaign. If my memory doesn't fail me, he blew those games also. The point of all this??? Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Keith Foulke, I just think that he was done in Chicago, and I am happy that he is doing good in Oakland.

Now let's all cheer up, these losses to Tampa Bay are making everyone edgy!

Brian26
07-06-2003, 01:51 AM
Originally posted by B. Diddy
I'll admit that the bullpen coughed it up

Thanks for agreeing with me. Yes, the bullpen was more responsible for those loses than the starting pitching.

Nellie_Fox
07-06-2003, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by VeeckAsInWreck
Now let's all cheer up, these losses to Tampa Bay are making everyone edgy! As well they should be. All of the emotional wins against the Twins and Cubs should have put the team on a roll. These losses to the Rays have let the air out of the balloon.