PDA

View Full Version : Cotts has NO business in the BIGS


Gumshoe
08-28-2003, 02:53 PM
Guys, this is just another KW ploy to deflect Foulke criticism. There is no WAY Cotts is ready, and Wright should have been starting this game anyway. Wright is looking solid here. Plus, he has experience, and even though he has looked terrible a few times, overall he's pitched average enough for us to win.

KW, quit doing stupid stuff just to escape the worst trade ever, please! You have done good things to make this team a winner again, don't do brainless stuff.

Also, you can't criticize JM that much for not starting Buehrle today. There is no reason to blow out MB's arm or risk anything when you can give him extra days and we've already won the series. I'm not saying to forego the series sweep, but we have Buehrle, Garland, Loiaza against DET, and you have to think that the added risk of starting Buehrle compared to his pitching against the Yanks is not worth it ( and JM looks like a genius if we win today, too)

Gumshoe

CHISOXFAN13
08-28-2003, 02:56 PM
Cotts was our hottes pitcher in the system.

Who would you have thrown out there instead?

Hangar18
08-28-2003, 02:56 PM
Lets not forget to push some of this blame to WRIGHT himself for pitching like a JackAss in the first place.......Necessitating the move to try people out for the 5th starters role. Hes as much to blame as Manuel and Cotts

Gumshoe
08-28-2003, 05:35 PM
JM did NOT make the call to bring up NCotts or to pitch him. KW did. Wright is fine. He showed it today. You can't second guess his performance, it was as solid as they come. We lost the game in the first inning.

If we sweep the Tigers as we should with those starters going, the division is ours. You heard it here first. Bring it back up if it doesn't happen. Book it.

Gumshoe

Hangar18
08-28-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
JM did NOT make the call to bring up NCotts or to pitch him. KW did. Wright is fine. He showed it today. You can't second guess his performance, it was as solid as they come. We lost the game in the first inning.

If we sweep the Tigers as we should with those starters going, the division is ours. You heard it here first. Bring it back up if it doesn't happen. Book it.

Gumshoe

ALso....Letss not give WRIGHT THAT MUCH CREDIT EITHER. he was TERRIBLE in a starting Role......but has been pretty dang good as a middle/long relliever. Whats to say we put him in the #5 and he stinks again? This IS THE REASON COTTS and everyone else has been given a chance to pitch the #5 spot

southsidegirl
08-28-2003, 05:46 PM
I feel like a fool for believing in Neal Snotts. He just gets too nervous. I liked him, I really did. Hopefully, in a few years after he works out his problems with control, he'll be a good pitcher. His fastball is outstanding. I think we should send him down and bring up Jaime Burke as a third catcher unless Koch comes off the DL really soon. I'd rather have a good pitching rotation than one that is good 4/5 of the way, even though Neal was very nice to look at...

FJA
08-28-2003, 05:48 PM
Cotts is here, even if he won't be for long. We might as well get some use out of him.

My big problem isn't that Manuel started Cotts, it's that he made the decision, then said Buehrle would pitch, and then trotted Cotts out there anyway. If Manuel would have stuck to his guns, fine. He has his reasons, and I can respect that. But when he screws with Cotts and Buehrle and has the clubhouse questioning the whole mess with moving back and forth between the two, that I cannot respect. He should have never said "99.9% Buehrle." He should have said, 100% Buehrle or 100% Cotts, "Don't ask me any more questions about it." Period.

If anything good has come of this, it is that there can't be a single person in the White Sox organization who believes Cotts is the man for the stretch run. If he had dominated the Tigers and then we threw him out there again against the Red Sox or someone and he got killed in September, it might have been worse. That being said, no one should put him in the position to lose to the Yankees, the Red Sox, the Twins or the Royals. But you just know that had Cotts beat the Tigers, Manuel would have found a way for him to pitch against the Red Sox, et al.

If the Twins and Royals somehow lose, we got away with one, and it might turn out in our favor down the road since we sure as hell won't put Cotts out there in another important game. But even if we got away with it, that doesn't make it a good decision.

On the other hand, hopefully we got a glimpse of the Danny Wright we will see for the next month.

Hangar18
08-28-2003, 05:52 PM
Billy Koch, Manual-mismanaging, and the disappearing offense
put us in this spot........we need to win EVERY GAME POSSIBLE.
this isnt how you win a division..........

LuvSox
08-28-2003, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by southsidegirl
I feel like a fool for believing in Neal Snotts. He just gets too nervous.

He's just a kid! He was throwing at Yankee stadium. Give him a break. Manuel is the problem here.

Lip Man 1
08-28-2003, 06:14 PM
Cotts DOES deserve to be in the major leagues, Just not under these circumstances. He should'nt have been put in a situation where he was forced to pitch in the middle of a pennant race.

The Sox STILL haven't solved the problem of the so called meaningless 5th starter. (Or has everyone forgotten that Gary Glover was in that position last year and was awful as well...)

Cotts deserves to learn with a club ten games out of first not in first hanging by a thread.

Lip

Gumshoe
08-28-2003, 08:05 PM
Do KC and MIN have easier schedules? Yes.

Does it matter? No.

The Sox will have plenty of home games, and they have three at Detroit where if they sweep or win 2, they'll be fine. There's no reason they shouldn't win this division. They are playing well and they are definitely better than both MIN and KC, and they play those teams in the next month.

Wright is fine. The 5th starter thing is overrated, because there aren't / weren't that many starts anyway!

Sweep DET and that'll wrap up the division.
Cheers,

Gum

duke of dorwood
08-28-2003, 09:22 PM
Of course no one posting here has ever folded in a pressure situation in your youth. Neil Cotts had improved each start. He was pitching in a legendary park, in front of 40,000 hostile fans, against a team 30 games over .500 that needed to win. Many more experienced pitchers have had the same fate. The manager put him in that position. Remember he really didnt know until yesterday that he was pitching. Not much time to mentally be ready.

thepaulbowski
08-28-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Billy Koch, Manual-mismanaging, and the disappearing offense
put us in this spot........we need to win EVERY GAME POSSIBLE.
this isnt how you win a division..........


Uh...a disapperating offense? We got how many runs in three games against goods pitchers? I agree with the mismanaging, but our offense has been pretty damn good since the all-star break

thepaulbowski
08-28-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
Guys, this is just another KW ploy to deflect Foulke criticism. There is no WAY Cotts is ready, and Wright should have been starting this game anyway. Wright is looking solid here. Plus, he has experience, and even though he has looked terrible a few times, overall he's pitched average enough for us to win.

KW, quit doing stupid stuff just to escape the worst trade ever, please! You have done good things to make this team a winner again, don't do brainless stuff.

Gumshoe

I wish people would stop complaing about the Foulke trade. How many times in the last few years were people calling on the Sox to get a real closer? Trading for the Rolaid Relief winner in the AL seemed like a pretty good deal at the time. Not everything works out, you can't fault KW for trying to make the team better. But I guess some Sox fans would rather complain about what they don't have instead of what they have...a change to win the division!

WhiteSox = Life
08-28-2003, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Uh...a disapperating offense? We got how many runs in three games against goods pitchers? I agree with the mismanaging, but our offense has been pretty damn good since the all-star break

Since the beginning of the season is from where he starts. The offense was non-existent for a long time. It's around now, but when it could've been used for just a few runs earlier in the season, it continued to pull a Houdini.

gosox41
08-28-2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
Cotts was our hottes pitcher in the system.

Who would you have thrown out there instead?

Wright.

People ripped on me for saying Cotts wasn't ready for the bigs because he lacked command (I mentioned this when he was called up.) After his first start I pointed out again that he's not ready but some assured my I'm an idiot and it was nerves.

I mentioned in a post after his third start that Cotts has as many walks as IP. After today, one can no longer say that. He now has more BB's then IP'

So here's the idea let's stick a pitcher in the roation who clearly doesn't have command of the strike zone and let him keep pitching because he can blow heat by AA batters.

I'm not saying Cotts doesn't have a future in the majors, it's just not now

Evidently, to some, I just don't know what I'm talking about. So let's keep trotting him out there. He pitched so well in Texas I mean he only had 5 walks and gave up 5 hits in 5 innings. Nothing like putting 10 guys on base in 5 hittings. Keep doing that and it's going to catch up to you.

Bob

Lip Man 1
08-29-2003, 02:18 AM
Gumshoe says: The 5th starter thing is overrated, because there aren't / weren't that many starts anyway!

In Phil Rogers column in the Tribune tonight he states that Sox 5th starters are now 3-10 with an ERA of 6.77 for the season.

That's 13 games...sounds like an awful lot to me when you are now tied for first with a team that lost 100 games last season.

Plus the 5th starter spot will be going AGAIN another time or two.

15 games....guess that's not a lot of starts eh?

Lip

kempsted
08-29-2003, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Gumshoe says: The 5th starter thing is overrated, because there aren't / weren't that many starts anyway!

In Phil Rogers column in the Tribune tonight he states that Sox 5th starters are now 3-10 with an ERA of 6.77 for the season.

That's 13 games...sounds like an awful lot to me when you are now tied for first with a team that lost 100 games last season.

Plus the 5th starter spot will be going AGAIN another time or two.

15 games....guess that's not a lot of starts eh?

Lip

Lip try looking into facts. The #5 starting position is 10-10. We won 6 of the 12 games Wright started. 2 of the 4 Cotts started and 2 of the 5 Stewart started. Wright in fact had 5 official quality starts. The bottom line is to win games. I admit that some of the performance of number 5 starters has made it harder to win games but at least we don't have Estes. In fact I bet we are better than average for the league on winning when the 5th starter goes.

Lip Man 1
08-29-2003, 03:04 AM
Kemp:

I'm just telling you what was in his column. Read it yourself. Obviously you and he must have a difference of opinion of what constitutes a 5th starter.

Lip

thepaulbowski
08-29-2003, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Gumshoe says: The 5th starter thing is overrated, because there aren't / weren't that many starts anyway!

In Phil Rogers column in the Tribune tonight he states that Sox 5th starters are now 3-10 with an ERA of 6.77 for the season.

That's 13 games...sounds like an awful lot to me when you are now tied for first with a team that lost 100 games last season.

Plus the 5th starter spot will be going AGAIN another time or two.

15 games....guess that's not a lot of starts eh?

Lip

It sounds like everyone can stop complaining about who should be the fifth starter. Manuel could be swithching to a four man rotation from here on out. Which, makes sense.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/112972p-102017c.html

maurice
08-29-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Trading for the Rolaid Relief winner in the AL seemed like a pretty good deal at the time.

Actually, at the time, plenty of people pointed out that the deal made the team worse.

Originally posted by kempsted
I bet we are better than average for the league on winning when the 5th starter goes.

A .500 record in starts made by a #5 starter has to be at or near the top of the league. Coupled with the excellent collective performance of the top four starters, this conclusively establishes that the starting roation has been the Sox primary strength all season. The defense has been pretty good also. Imagine the Sox record if the team scored any runs in the first half.

:walnuts :manos
"Why you looking at us?"

voodoochile
08-29-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
It sounds like everyone can stop complaining about who should be the fifth starter. Manuel could be swithching to a four man rotation from here on out. Which, makes sense.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/112972p-102017c.html

Cotts gave up five runs on three hits and four walks in a third of an inning. It was really the last chance this season to do that, Manuel said. "We'll probably just go with (a four-man rotation) from here."

OHMIGAWD! *****!

I am dying here. So we throw the 5th starter to the wolves yesterday and go with the 4-man rotation starting today?

*** is Jerry thinking? Anyone want to support him now? Of course that probably means the Sox will use a 5th starter on a regular basis if JM's past predictions/statements of team direction are any indication.

:firejerry

southsidegirl
08-30-2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by LuvSox
He's just a kid! He was throwing at Yankee stadium. Give him a break. Manuel is the problem here.

Exactly my point! I can't believe that I believed that he would fare well in his situation. I really like him, I do, but he has some control problems and it is important that he gets them sorted out. Besides, Neal Snotts sounds funny.

TheRockinMT
08-30-2003, 11:53 AM
I don't think KW was 100% wrong in bringing up Cotts. He is a good prospect and was pitching well. I don't see any trade in the works for the Sox and that's why Cotts was added. We need a fifth starter and weren't going to make a trade to get one. I do wish we had looked at Rausch or Stewart first though. I think they rushed Cotts, who isn't ready for the bigs yet and it showed.