PDA

View Full Version : Danny Wright


hose
09-26-2003, 10:13 AM
Does he have any future with the White Sox ?

Year ERA W L Sv Svo G IP H R ER BB K AVG A
2003 6.15 1 7 1 1 20 86.1 91 63 59 46 47 .277


Year GS CG Sho GF K/BB BB/9 K/9 RATIO HR HB IBB SH WP BK
2003 15 0 0 1 1.0 4.8 4.9 1.59 16 3 2 6 6
0

5th starter, long man, set-up , closer, truck driver?

Risk
09-26-2003, 10:18 AM
Maybe a peanut vender at the Cell.

Perhaps Kenny should consider trading him for a bag of used baseballs, since at least those have some kind of value.

Risk

jortafan
09-26-2003, 10:20 AM
My mind must be blanking out. I don't remember Danny Wright winning any games this season. Which so-called major league team has the dubious distinction of actually having been defeated by Danny Wright during 2003?

mandmandm
09-26-2003, 10:24 AM
Wasn't he the dope who despite the Sox training staff saying he was ok sought out several opinions to verify that his precious arm was fine to start the season?

Mammoo
09-26-2003, 10:30 AM
Wasn't he being counted on to take the next step this year. :?: I seem to remember him finishing strong last season, although his stats weren't that impressive:

W-14 L-12 ERA- 5.18

hose
09-26-2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by Risk
Maybe a peanut vender at the Cell.

Perhaps Kenny should consider trading him for a bag of used baseballs, since at least those have some kind of value.

Risk


The only upside to Wright's ineffectiveness is that going into next year the Sox wont be expecting anything from him.

This year the Sox pointed to Wright's 14 wins in 2002 and figured he would be a somewhat of a valuable starter.

DrCrawdad
09-26-2003, 10:42 AM
Danny Wright 2003, a HUGE disappointment!

PaleHoseGeorge
09-26-2003, 10:47 AM
I would use Danny Wright as Exhibit A for why you can *never* have enough pitching. Everyone expected him to be the #4 or #5 pitcher on this year's staff, yet beyond anyone's ability to predict he was terrible in the rotation.

Wright's troubles wouldn't have been too bad except the Sox had NOBODY to fall back on. We had nobody except Mike Porzio and Neal Cotts to pitch every fifth day. This is inexcusable because some of the great strategic minds around here were posting last spring that picking up an extra pitcher (like Kenny Rogers) would *hurt* the team because guys like Wright and Rauch wouldn't get their shot. Can you believe that ****? Rogers was one of the pitchers who put the final nails in our coffin last week pitching for Minnesota!

If Loaiza doesn't put up a career year, the '03 Sox are dead and buried sometime back in June. It wasn't anymore "bad luck" that Wright sucked than it was "good luck" that Loaiza pitched lights out. If we had simply gotten one more pitcher better than either Porzio or Cotts, luck wouldn't have played any role at all.

Here's the cold reality some people here need to come to grips with. Never pass an opportunity to stack up pitching arms as though they were cord wood next to the fire.

Next year Wright will probably pitch better. Unfortunately, next year Loaiza will probably pitch worse. Let's start dealing with it.

voodoochile
09-26-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by mandmandm
Wasn't he the dope who despite the Sox training staff saying he was ok sought out several opinions to verify that his precious arm was fine to start the season?

Yeah, Danny has always been a head case. he went something like 2-13 his final year in college and IIRC actually had a nervous breakdown of some kind. It would be no shock if he continued to let "normal elbow pain" convince him that something was radically wrong with his elbow and thus not throw as hard or acurately as he is capable of throwing.

This may be it for him if he can't convince himself to pitch over the worry. Too bad he has such a fragile mental makeup. I wonder if he can become a solid reliever where he doesn't have to worry and think for 4 days at a time before each appearance.

DrCrawdad
09-26-2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
...Next year Wright will probably pitch better. Unfortunately, next year Loaiza will probably pitch worse. Let's start dealing with it.

Could Wright pitch worse?

Loaiza had the best year of any pitcher in Chicago although he's not the best pitcher in Chicago.

I suspect that Loaiza will settle back to his pre-2003 like numbers in '04. No doubt Colon will follow the same pattern. I fully expect that Colon will win 20+ games for the Spankmees or Boston next year.

alohafri
09-26-2003, 11:13 AM
I had been willing to give Danny Wright the benefit of the doubt earlier in the year due to some flashes of near brilliance in the past. That being said, after this season, I have given up on him as a starter. He has shown that he is a decent long man, however.

soxfan26
09-26-2003, 11:26 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
[B]I would use Danny Wright as Exhibit A for why you can *never* have enough pitching. Everyone expected him to be the #4 or #5 pitcher on this year's staff, yet beyond anyone's ability to predict he was terrible in the rotation.

Wright's troubles wouldn't have been too bad except the Sox had NOBODY to fall back on. We had nobody except Mike Porzio and Neal Cotts to pitch every fifth day. This is inexcusable because some of the great strategic minds around here were posting last spring that picking up an extra pitcher (like Kenny Rogers) would *hurt* the team because guys like Wright and Rauch wouldn't get their shot. Can you believe that ****? Rogers was one of the pitchers who put the final nails in our coffin last week pitching for Minnesota!

Here's the cold reality some people here need to come to grips with. Never pass an opportunity to stack up pitching arms as though they were cord wood next to the fire.

Saying that KW "passed up" the change to stack up on pitching is wrong.

Rogers' agent and the Sox talked about signing him. He wanted a 2-year deal worth 2 million a year, Sox were offering a one-year incentive laden contract. KW was boot strapped once again and could not make the deal.

Rogers would have filled out the middle of the rotation nicely. But the fact that he went to Minnesota is mute, the truth is that even Danny Wright could have beat the Sox lineup in thier collapse this month.

As for Wright in 2004, he seemed happy in August to be in the bullpen, he posted tolerable numbers, so let him pitch long relief.

voodoochile
09-26-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Saying that KW "passed up" the change to stack up on pitching is wrong.

Rogers' agent and the Sox talked about signing him. He wanted a 2-year deal worth 2 million a year, Sox were offering a one-year incentive laden contract. KW was boot strapped once again and could not make the deal.

Rogers would have filled out the middle of the rotation nicely. But the fact that he went to Minnesota is mute, the truth is that even Danny Wright could have beat the Sox lineup in thier collapse this month.

As for Wright in 2004, he seemed happy in August to be in the bullpen, he posted tolerable numbers, so let him pitch long relief.

Hey, Welcome Aboard! :D:

soxfan26
09-26-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Hey, Welcome Aboard! :D:

Thanks - Glad to be here!

PaleHoseGeorge
09-26-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Hey, Welcome Aboard! :D:

Indeed, welcome. :cool:

My complaint was not with the Sox not signing Rogers but with several posters here at WSI last February who were dead-set against adding any starting pitchers to the staff. They were convinced adding somebody like Rogers would hinder the progress of young prospects like Rauch and Cotts. They weren't persuaded by the obvious point that adding a pitcher to the staff--any pitcher-- would knock the worst pitcher off the staff and out of the picture. That pitcher was Porzio, not Rauch or Cotts.

We got lucky with Loaiza but unlucky with Wright, so here comes Porzio with the disastrous results any of us could have predicted.

If the Sox are guilty of anything, it's what my sig file states. They've proven themselves guilty of all of this innumerable times the last 86 years.

soxfan26
09-26-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Indeed, welcome. :cool:

My complaint was not with the Sox not signing Rogers but with several posters here at WSI last February who were dead-set against adding any starting pitchers to the staff.

Well that changes everything. I'd have to agree, you don't use the pitching staff of a playoff hopeful team as a place to develop young pitchers. Wright had serviceable numbers at best last year and had a horrible spring, he did not pitch well enough to deserve the #5 spot in the rotation. But this spring the Sox tabbed him as the #4 starter and brought in E-Lo and Heredia to fight for the #5 spot.

I just hope they learn from the past, bring back the 4-man rotation in tact (Buehrle, Colon, E-Lo, Garland) give Wright and Schoney a shot at #5, but bring in some insurance when they fail.

hold2dibber
09-26-2003, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Indeed, welcome. :cool:

My complaint was not with the Sox not signing Rogers but with several posters here at WSI last February who were dead-set against adding any starting pitchers to the staff. They were convinced adding somebody like Rogers would hinder the progress of young prospects like Rauch and Cotts. They weren't persuaded by the obvious point that adding a pitcher to the staff--any pitcher-- would knock the worst pitcher off the staff and out of the picture. That pitcher was Porzio, not Rauch or Cotts.

I agree with you to an extent. Although, overall, the Sox starting pitching this year was teriffic, there is no such thing as too much pitching. Remember in spring training, when people were bemoaning the fact that the Yankees had 7 starters? Well, as it turned out, they needed extra starters because Weaver was horrible and Contreras was hurt and/or horrible (for a while).

With that said, there certainly was reason to believe that Danny Wright would be a decent starter this year. Last year he had 18 quality starts - i.e., the same number as Mark Mulder and David Wells. He was really good a lot of the time, but when he was bad, he was awful. So it seemed reasonable to expect that he would at least be as good as he was last year (which would have been good enough). Instead, he was an unmitigated disaster (as opposed to a mitigated disaster?).

Looking forward to next year, the Sox have some big decisions to make with respect to the rotation. Re-signing Colon should be, IMHO, a top priority. But there is every reason to believe that they'll be out-bid by the Yankmees. If Colon goes, the Sox will need to acquire at least TWO quality starters. I'm assuming Buehrle is a little better this year, and Loaiza is not nearly as good (though I think he'll still be pretty good, and better than he was pre-'03). Assume Garland is about the same. That leaves two big holes in the rotation. I do not want the Sox counting on Wright, Rauch, Cotts or anyone else to fill either of those slots. The fact is, everybody needs more than 5 starters in a season (this year's Mariners notwithstanding), so the best of the AAA crop will get their chances anyway.

pudge
09-26-2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by soxfan26
Well that changes everything. I'd have to agree, you don't use the pitching staff of a playoff hopeful team as a place to develop young pitchers. Wright had serviceable numbers at best last year and had a horrible spring, he did not pitch well enough to deserve the #5 spot in the rotation. But this spring the Sox tabbed him as the #4 starter and brought in E-Lo and Heredia to fight for the #5 spot.

I just hope they learn from the past, bring back the 4-man rotation in tact (Buehrle, Colon, E-Lo, Garland) give Wright and Schoney a shot at #5, but bring in some insurance when they fail.

Maybe this collapse will wake up JR... based on the recent report saying he's willing to spend $$ on a manager, maybe he'll also spend a little more on his team...

Most of us here on WSI knew that not signing a solid #5 was going to kill us, and it basically did (although there were other factors too).

Please KW, don't even THINK about putting Wright in the rotation next year. Send him straight to the pen.

maurice
09-26-2003, 01:46 PM
I really hesitate to delve into this reopened can of worms, but I'd like to clear up the record a bit here.

I only recall one person suggesting that Rogers should not be signed under any circumstances. Several others (including me) suggested that they should try to sign him as an insurance policy but not guarantee him a spot in the rotation. The response was that Rogers surely would agree to take whatever role JM assigned, including Mike Porzio's role as the 16th man on the staff. IIRC, everyone agreed that the Sox should jump at the chance to acquiring a better starting pitcher than Rogers to compliment Colon and Buerhle, but that never materialized. Cotts was not mentioned.

KW made Rogers a decent offer, and Rogers turned him down. Rogers recently was quoted as saying that KW continued to pursue him, but he continued to refuse and was without any other offers and on the brink of retirement when a Twins injury caused them to make an offer. He jumped at the chance, knowing that the Twins had realtively little starting pitching depth. He went on to have a mediocre year (1.42 WHIP / 4.56 ERA), consistent with the expectations of most posters. Pre-season suggestions that KW (1) call up Rauch, or (2) use the money he saved to acquire a better starting pitcher, were not followed (though KW did shore up the position players and the pen).

In any event, the much disputed pre-season predictions that Sox pitching was a strength of the team turned out to be true. Sox starters were 4th in the AL and the best in the AL Central by a wide margain. They lost because they didn't score runs consistently. It's abundantly clear by now that the problem with the 2003 Sox was disappointing offensive production and a bad manager.

Everyone is upset that the Sox may be falling into third place while the Cubs remain tied for first, but it's really time to move on.

Lip Man 1
09-26-2003, 01:54 PM
This is from the Chicago Sun Times and should give everyone an idea where this off season is heading...

"The lack of a fifth starter has been a Sox weakness all season . Despite the midseason additions of second baseman Roberto Alomar and outfielder Carl Everett, it was a hole the Sox and Williams couldn't plug.

Williams has said the pitching staff will be his first priority in the offseason -- but only after a new manager is hired."

So what does this all mean. Just my opinion (and I'm the same guy who crusaded all season for a quality 5th starter despite being told it "wasn't needed...wasn't important...and being told Phil Rogers' stats on the dismal showing of Sox 5th starters was 'wrong') but I think the days of BOTH Jon garland and Danny wright are numbered with the Sox.

I infer from what I've seen and read about Williams that he is going to try as hard as possible to get five veteran starting pitchers for the club next season. That he's tired of "head cases" like Garland, that he's going to try to dump Koch and rebuild a bullpen that lost ten games this season where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.

As to whether he can actually do that....it depends on what the owner allows him to do.

Lip

pudge
09-26-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1


I infer from what I've seen and read about Williams that he is going to try as hard as possible to get five veteran starting pitchers for the club next season. That he's tired of "head cases" like Garland, that he's going to try to dump Koch and rebuild a bullpen that lost ten games this season where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.


Garland is a relative bargain and he gives you a ton of quality starts. I doubt he's going anywhere.

hold2dibber
09-26-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
So what does this all mean. Just my opinion (and I'm the same guy who crusaded all season for a quality 5th starter despite being told it "wasn't needed...wasn't important...and being told Phil Rogers' stats on the dismal showing of Sox 5th starters was 'wrong') but I think the days of BOTH Jon garland and Danny wright are numbered with the Sox.

I infer from what I've seen and read about Williams that he is going to try as hard as possible to get five veteran starting pitchers for the club next season. That he's tired of "head cases" like Garland, that he's going to try to dump Koch and rebuild a bullpen that lost ten games this season where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later.

As to whether he can actually do that....it depends on what the owner allows him to do.

Lip

Getting rid of Garland would be a big mistake. As has been noted elsewhere, despite the fact that he did not meet my expectations this year, the fact remains that he is an above-average (only slightly) major league pitcher and he's cheap. Unless Reinsdorf intends to let KW spent $90 mm on next year's payroll, Garland is a perfect fit for the back of the rotation (and I still think it is entirely possible that he'll make a big leap forward next year). But I certainly would welcome upgraded pitching. Even though starting pitching was NOT a problem for the Sox this year, Loaiza isn't going to be awesome again next year. I think he'll be pretty good, but not Cy Young-contender good.

I'm all for dumping Koch, but they really need to re-sign Gordon. And dumping Koch won't be easy, unless we take on someone else's problem contract in return (which is probably worth a shot).

And one question: assuming that Lip's stats are right, and the Sox pen blew 10 leads in the 7th inning or later, how does that compare with the rest of the league. My guess is that 10 such blown leads is probably less than most teams.

34 Inch Stick
09-26-2003, 04:27 PM
I'm suprised it is only 10. Didn't Marte alone have 8 blown saves?

Lip, I give you credit on your opinions about starting pitching at the beginning of the year. I think you were the most vocal on signing more veterans. In fact, Suppan was your guy, and he turned out to have an excellent season for a reasonable sum. Buhrle, Loiza, Suppan and Garland under contract for next year would have been a nice start.

However, you are absolutely off your freakin rocker about Garland. At worst he is a great 5th starter in this league. ANY team that got that kind of production out of their 5th starter would be thrilled at the end of the year. At the beginning of the year, if you told me Loiza would post Garland's numbers, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. Take expectations and frustration about what could be out of the equation (and we are all frustrated by him). He is a legitimate major league starter pitching for peanuts.

I think we have to expect to lose Colon, so what does that leave us? As with last year sign a back end veteran (welcome home Wilson Alvarez or Jeremi Gonzalez). Then you have to sign a front of the rotation veteran as well. What about a guy like Maddux? I don't think he will be getting above Colon's 8 million. At the same time he is reportedly a great teacher. Have Garland, Rauch, Cotts, etc. study at the Maddux Academy for a year. You can probably plug him in for 15 wins (at least history tells us that).

I know not everybody is a Maddux fan but he is one of those players that definetely will help to change the attitude of a clubhouse.

maurice
09-26-2003, 04:38 PM
The winning formula with respect to the pitching staff would be to resign Colon and Gordon, exercise Sullivan's option, and acquire another starting pitcher who is at least as good as Colon. Anything less means that next year's staff likely will be worse than the current staff.

We're in for another real interesting offseason. Maybe next week's press conference will announce JM's firing and a payroll increase to $80+ million.

washington
09-26-2003, 05:49 PM
FWIW, Danny Wright's lone victory this season was Aug. 12 at Anaheim, when he relieved for Neal Cotts in Cotts' first start. There's a joke somewhere in there that's screaming to get out.....

voodoochile
09-26-2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by washington
FWIW, Danny Wright's lone victory this season was Aug. 12 at Anaheim, when he relieved for Neal Cotts in Cotts' first start. There's a joke somewhere in there that's screaming to get out.....

Welcome Aboard! :D:

washington
09-26-2003, 05:51 PM
Thanks !

Lip Man 1
09-26-2003, 06:19 PM
Guys:

I'm not saying that Williams is going to dump Garland, I'm saying that I think he's going to try. He already tried once remember?

If Williams can't get quality pitching replacements, he's going to hang on to him and stick him in the back end of the rotation.

I just think that Williams (like Manuel) is getting more and more frustrated with Garland making the same mistakes over and over again.

and here are the ten blown games:

4/3 at KC lost lead in 8th inning
4/15 vs. KC lost lead in 8th inning
4/24 at Balt. lost lead in 7th inning
5/18 at Minn. lost lead in 8th inning
6/1 at Cleve. lost lead in 8th inning
6/3 at Ariz. lost lead in 8th inning
6/12 vs. SF lost lead in 9th inning
6/22 at Cubs lost lead in 8th inning
7/4 at TB lost lead in 9th inning
9/3 vs. Bost lost lead in 8th inning

Lip

voodoochile
09-26-2003, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
and here are the ten blown games:

4/3 at KC lost lead in 8th inning
4/15 vs. KC lost lead in 8th inning
4/24 at Balt. lost lead in 7th inning
5/18 at Minn. lost lead in 8th inning
6/1 at Cleve. lost lead in 8th inning
6/3 at Ariz. lost lead in 8th inning
6/12 vs. SF lost lead in 9th inning
6/22 at Cubs lost lead in 8th inning
7/4 at TB lost lead in 9th inning
9/3 vs. Bost lost lead in 8th inning

Lip

Interesting but not surprising that 9 of them happened before the bullpen was upgraded and while Koch was still closing on a semi-regular basis. Seems to say that if they can manage to bring back the bullpen as it currently sits they should be fine next year.

RichH55
09-27-2003, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Guys:

I'm not saying that Williams is going to dump Garland, I'm saying that I think he's going to try. He already tried once remember?

If Williams can't get quality pitching replacements, he's going to hang on to him and stick him in the back end of the rotation.

I just think that Williams (like Manuel) is getting more and more frustrated with Garland making the same mistakes over and over again.

and here are the ten blown games:

4/3 at KC lost lead in 8th inning
4/15 vs. KC lost lead in 8th inning
4/24 at Balt. lost lead in 7th inning
5/18 at Minn. lost lead in 8th inning
6/1 at Cleve. lost lead in 8th inning
6/3 at Ariz. lost lead in 8th inning
6/12 vs. SF lost lead in 9th inning
6/22 at Cubs lost lead in 8th inning
7/4 at TB lost lead in 9th inning
9/3 vs. Bost lost lead in 8th inning

Lip


If Garland has progressed to what he can be....its time to deal him. He's cheap, yes. A good 4th starter, of course. But Garland being where he is in terms of contract and age....sometimes you can get people to bite on that and deal something of value


Its all up to the scouts and KW to make the right call, but If Garland is a 4th Starter for life, you can definately deal him "high" rather than wait for the eventual falling of his value

Hangar18
09-27-2003, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

Wright's troubles wouldn't have been too bad except the Sox had NOBODY to fall back on. We had nobody except Mike Porzio and Neal Cotts to pitch every fifth day. This is inexcusable because some of the great strategic minds around here were posting last spring that picking up an extra pitcher (like Kenny Rogers) would *hurt* the team because guys like Wright and Rauch wouldn't get their shot. Can you believe that ****? Rogers was one of the pitchers who put the final nails in our coffin last week pitching for Minnesota!

If Loaiza doesn't put up a career year, the '03 Sox are dead and buried sometime back in June. It wasn't anymore "bad luck" that Wright sucked than it was "good luck" that Loaiza pitched lights out. If we had simply gotten one more pitcher better than either Porzio or Cotts, luck wouldn't have played any role at all.

...year Loaiza will probably pitch worse. Let's start dealing with it.

I forgot about that. Hell Yeah, we shouldve Gotten that Extra pitcher. Every person we tried in that 5th spot DIDNT CUT IT. It just made for a waste of a an Almost Cy Young like season from Loiaza. I do remember we offered him something LOWBALL, and the Twins actually paid a bit more..........
And he Gave it to us. Ahhhhhhhh I love the smell of IRONY on a Cool Crisp Autumn Morning

Hangar18
09-27-2003, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I forgot about that. Hell Yeah, we shouldve Gotten that Extra pitcher. Every person we tried in that 5th spot DIDNT CUT IT. It just made for a waste of a an Almost Cy Young like season from Loiaza. I do remember we offered him something LOWBALL, and the Twins actually paid a bit more..........
And he Gave it to us. Ahhhhhhhh I love the smell of IRONY on a Cool Crisp Autumn Morning


I think it might be safe to say, that, the 1 Million bucks we saved by NOT SIGNING ROGERS earlier this year, COST US THIS DIVISION. of course, a lot of things cost us, but Rogers winning those extra 9 or 10 games, and were forgetting how Terrible KOCH is, or how dumb some of Manuels Lineups are, and INSTEAD are getting ready TO BEAT THE YANKEES IN THE ALDS.
Thats 2 moves I can count, that were MONEY RELATED, that have BURNED THE SOX. (other being Trading Foulke because he was Arbitration eligible)

jeremyb1
09-27-2003, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Indeed, welcome. :cool:

My complaint was not with the Sox not signing Rogers but with several posters here at WSI last February who were dead-set against adding any starting pitchers to the staff. They were convinced adding somebody like Rogers would hinder the progress of young prospects like Rauch and Cotts. They weren't persuaded by the obvious point that adding a pitcher to the staff--any pitcher-- would knock the worst pitcher off the staff and out of the picture. That pitcher was Porzio, not Rauch or Cotts.

We got lucky with Loaiza but unlucky with Wright, so here comes Porzio with the disastrous results any of us could have predicted.

If the Sox are guilty of anything, it's what my sig file states. They've proven themselves guilty of all of this innumerable times the last 86 years.

I still maintain the same point. I think its a bad idea to deny spots to promising pitchers before they throw a pitch in spring training. If anyone doubts this look no further than Minnesota. They would've burried us early if they'd had Santana in the rotation instead of Rogers. With the numbers he's put up the last couple seasons, this guy could be the best pitcher in the AL and he was working as a second lefty/long reliever in the first half. It really hindered Minnesota.

chisoxt
09-27-2003, 10:08 PM
Does he have any future with the White Sox ?

Year ERA W L Sv Svo G IP H R ER BB K AVG A
2003 6.15 1 7 1 1 20 86.1 91 63 59 46 47 .277

I would say that for the time being, there is no point in giving up on him...it's not like we have a bunch of pitching studs in the minors that are major-league ready.

Danny was brutal all year, but especially so at the end of the year after he and his wife had a baby. Maybe that contributed some to his failures. (BTW, not to seem callus, but if I were a struggling, young major league player, I would try to do a better job of family planning and not have a kid in September when your team could be in a pannant race!!)

MHOUSE
09-28-2003, 03:16 PM
If KW can resign Colon before he hits the market, then our outlook is good. If not and he goes free agent then he's gone and we're in trouble.

Buehrle - he'll be better, but can't do it all
Loaiza - I'd take a 12-9 season or even like an 11-10 season. 20 wins will be unlikely, but who knows. Moyer took until he was over 30 to develop, maybe Loaiza could do the same.
Garland - he's gotta get up to 15 or 16 wins I think. If he continues with this consistency then it's possible he could breakout as a solid #2-3 guy.
Scho, Wright, Stewie, Cotts, Rauch - here's our weakness. If Colon can be retained then we'd only have to bring in one guy, but if not then we have this motley group of inconsitent unprovens to be our 4-5 starters and to contend we'd need two new pitchers.

Bullpen: Marte, Gordon, ??

Expect major retooling here. If we can dump Koch then we'd be better off, but we'd still be short. Wunsch will cost like $1.5 million which seems like a lot, Sully will be gone. Wright or Ginter could be the long guy, but we'll be really short on middle relief.

dougs78
09-28-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
I still maintain the same point. I think its a bad idea to deny spots to promising pitchers before they throw a pitch in spring training. If anyone doubts this look no further than Minnesota. They would've burried us early if they'd had Santana in the rotation instead of Rogers. With the numbers he's put up the last couple seasons, this guy could be the best pitcher in the AL and he was working as a second lefty/long reliever in the first half. It really hindered Minnesota.


I still maintain that point also. Sure I will admit that Kenny Rogers had a better season than any of our 5th starters, but that doesn't change the logic behind the idea. Rogers had about the best season he could have been expected to, Wright and rest of the sox 5th starters had about the worst. Wright actually won more games last season at age 25 than Rogers did at 35 or whatever he was. Baseball is a funny game, unexpected things happen. I mean look no further than 2 players on our staff. I bet if we could go back in time and take a survey almost every poster on this entire board would have said Wright would have a better season than Loaiza.

But the points made are well-taken. It was apparent once Wright went down that we probably needed someone else and we weren't able to get one. Partially becuase nothing was out there, but still, as you point out a better pitcher would sure have helped.