PDA

View Full Version : ESPN article about Borchard & Rauch:


ChiSox14305635
10-31-2003, 06:50 PM
Down on the Farm (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?id=1651005)


John Sickels wrote his Down on the Farm article regarding Joe Borchard & Jon Rauch. Basically he said that Rauch has improved his status and should be given another shot at the rotation in 2004, while Borchard has regressed and more or less that next year is a make or break year. He also said Reed is the #1 prospect, with Honel & Cotts not too far behind.

hose
10-31-2003, 08:35 PM
Borchard is going from prospect to suspect.

batmanZoSo
10-31-2003, 08:51 PM
Borchard's gotta be about 25 now. He better get it going quick. He needs to have some success at the big league level next year or we'll have to stop depending on him and move on. But Magglio didn't become a star until he was 26, so...

I almost forgot Rauch existed. Weren't both of them players of the year? Doesn't do much for Jeremy Reed's case does it?

JRIG
10-31-2003, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Borchard's gotta be about 25 now. He better get it going quick. He needs to have some success at the big league level next year or we'll have to stop depending on him and move on. But Magglio didn't become a star until he was 26, so...

I almost forgot Rauch existed. Weren't both of them players of the year? Doesn't do much for Jeremy Reed's case does it?

Well, Rauch is coming back from major arm surgery. He actually pitched very well down the strech lasy year, an encouraging sign.

Reed's the real deal.

batmanZoSo
10-31-2003, 09:28 PM
I agree. If I could pick anybody to become a superstar, it would be Reed. He's gonna be Darin Erstad circa 2000.

Daver
10-31-2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
I agree. If I could pick anybody to become a superstar, it would be Reed. He's gonna be Darin Erstad circa 2000.

Darin Erstad is not a superstar.

crector
10-31-2003, 09:57 PM
If these prospects are so good, then why is KW trying to get a FA pitcher such as Ponson, especially when the payroll is such a problem already?

TDog
10-31-2003, 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Darin Erstad is not a superstar.

People thought he was in 2000.

Daver
10-31-2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by crector
If these prospects are so good, then why is KW trying to get a FA pitcher such as Ponson, especially when the payroll is such a problem already?

Because you win with proven product,guys that have proven that they can perform at the top level.

You also lose that way.

The pitching rotation for next season stands at Loaiza,Buerhle,Garland,and no one,what would you rather have,a proven commodity that has success at the big league level or a rookie that has not been spectacular in his big league efforts in the past?

baseballboy
10-31-2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Because you win with proven product,guys that have proven that they can perform at the top level.

You also lose that way.

The pitching rotation for next season stands at Loaiza,Buerhle,Garland,and no one,what would you rather have,a proven commodity that has success at the big league level or a rookie that has not been spectacular in his big league efforts in the past?

I dont know about you guys, but I wouldnt mind Ponson. I believe he is going to be very good. He should fit in nicely as a 2nd or 3rd starter. I dont think it would be too bad to have a rotation of:

Buehrle
Ponson
Loaiza
Garland
Rauch? Shoenweis?

Daver
10-31-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by baseballboy
I dont know about you guys, but I wouldnt mind Ponson. I believe he is going to be very good. He should fit in nicely as a 2nd or 3rd starter. I dont think it would be too bad to have a rotation of:

Buehrle
Ponson
Loaiza
Garland
Rauch? Shoenweis?

You could probably add Pacheco to that question mark list for the fifth starter.

MRKARNO
10-31-2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Daver
You could probably add Pacheco to that question mark list for the fifth starter.

Is he gonna pitch in winter ball this year?

Brian26
11-01-2003, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Darin Erstad is not a superstar.

LOL. Not in 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003.

john2499
11-01-2003, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
LOL. Not in 2000, 2001, 2002, or 2003.

I don't think he is a superstar neither but in 2000.....

HR RBI AVG. H 2B 3B SB OBP
25 100 .355 240 39 6 28 .409

Those are superstar numbers.

washington
11-01-2003, 10:53 AM
Yup, there's only been 5 AL players in history with more hits in a season. Fortunately, the Sox' trade for him fell through so they're not stuck with a Konerko-like contract with Erstad.

batmanZoSo
11-01-2003, 11:11 AM
Daver,

Darin Erstad "circa 2000" like I said, was a major stud. A superstar even.

jabrch
11-01-2003, 04:20 PM
Originally posted by crector
If these prospects are so good, then why is KW trying to get a FA pitcher such as Ponson, especially when the payroll is such a problem already?

Because we need 5 starters. I don't want to count on a rookie to be anything more than my 5th starter. We have Buehrle, Loaiza and Garland for sure. That means we need 1 more for sure and 2 if we plan on going into it with Schoenweiss, Rauch, Glover, etc...

If Colon would have accepted the more than fair offer we made him, we would probably not be seriously talking to Ponson.

idseer
11-01-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Daver,

Darin Erstad "circa 2000" like I said, was a major stud. A superstar even.

perhaps daver was as perplexed at your point as i was. why would you be comparing reed to a guy who has gone backward and is anything but a superstar?

batmanZoSo
11-01-2003, 04:55 PM
Jesus.

I did not compare Reed to the Darin Erstad who has gone downhill since having that incredible year. What's so hard to understand about "Darin Erstad circa 2000?" That's the player he's probably most similar to. And I'm saying Reed's going to be the guy Darin Erstad couldn't continue to be because of injuries. And I think it's pretty valid because Erstad was absolutely unreal that year...as was Reed this year. For their years in comparison, both hit for a very high average, .400+ on-base, and close to 100 rbis near the top of the order. They're both left handed center fielders who are white. There aren't that many of those.

nasox
11-01-2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by john2499
I don't think he is a superstar neither but in 2000.....


English lesson time:
No double negatives are used in English. You have used a double negative witht the two negatives being not (not part of don't) and neither. Acceptable form: I don't think he is a superstar either.

Actually I really don't care

batmanZoSo
11-01-2003, 06:28 PM
"No double negatives are used in English" doesn't sound right neitha'. Shouldn't it be "double negatives are not used?"

MRKARNO
11-01-2003, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
"No double negatives are used in English" doesn't sound right neitha'. Shouldn't it be "double negatives are not used?"

I think you're right.

RichH55
11-01-2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
"No double negatives are used in English" doesn't sound right neitha'. Shouldn't it be "double negatives are not used?"

Good times...How is irony used correctly in a sentence:)

StepsInSC
11-01-2003, 09:58 PM
Can we spare the grammar lessons?

jeremyb1
11-02-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by john2499
I don't think he is a superstar neither but in 2000.....

HR RBI AVG. H 2B 3B SB OBP
25 100 .355 240 39 6 28 .409

Those are superstar numbers.

The key difference is that Erstad would kill for Jeremy Reed's plate discipline. Reed has a chance to post a .400+ OBP without hitting .355.

34 Inch Stick
11-03-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
I think you're right.

The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain.