PDA

View Full Version : Ritchie, White, Williamson?...


Tragg
12-18-2003, 06:43 PM
Ritchie goes from a NL 4.47 ERA, KW trades the farm and gets a 6.06 ERA.

Rick White sports a NL ERA of 4.31, KW signs him and he gets a 6.61 (and a bad 6.61) for his efforts.

Williamson sports a 3.2 NL ERA, Boston trades for him, asks him to pitch them to a pennant, and they get a 6.20 ERA.

KW wants this guy????


Three times a charm, I guess.

rdivaldi
12-18-2003, 06:48 PM
You should never go by ERA alone when judging a reliever. Williamson sported a respectible .675 OPS against and fanned over a player per inning. Sometimes bad luck can jack up a relievers ERA...

Tragg
12-18-2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by rdivaldi
You should never go by ERA alone when judging a reliever. Williamson sported a respectible .675 OPS against and fanned over a player per inning. Sometimes bad luck can jack up a relievers ERA...

I understand that - he could go in, get 2 outs, walk a batter and his replacement lets that runner score and, wham, he has an era in excess of 9.

OTH, Rick white at a WHIPs of 1.47 and Williamson of 1.45. I don't think White's problems were caused by bad luck.

dickallen15
12-18-2003, 07:00 PM
Williamson wasn't in Boston long. There was a stat that he basically was unhittable when he came in to start an inning, and got lit up when he came in with men on. He is a very good pitcher. The only questions I would have about him are health related, but he would be a great substitute for Flash.

Tragg
12-18-2003, 07:02 PM
Well, if he wants Williamson, there is no way in hell he should have to add anything in the mix to get him, much less Cotts or even Wright

hold2dibber
12-18-2003, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
Well, if he wants Williamson, there is no way in hell he should have to add anything in the mix to get him, much less Cotts or even Wright

So the guy has been a top flight reliever for four years, but based on 20 innings, you think he can't cut it in the AL? That's absurd. Plus, he was absolutely awesome in the playoffs - 0.78 WHIP, ERA of 1.13. Scott Williamson is a damn good pitcher - to suggest that he's not worth Danny Wright is utterly ridiculous.

Tragg
12-18-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
So the guy has been a top flight reliever for four years, but based on 20 innings, you think he can't cut it in the AL? That's absurd. Plus, he was absolutely awesome in the playoffs - 0.78 WHIP, ERA of 1.13. Scott Williamson is a damn good pitcher - to suggest that he's not worth Danny Wright is utterly ridiculous.

Actually, what I said was that the differential between maggs and nomar plus wright is not worth williamson.
And that would also be 24 games.

Jjav829
12-18-2003, 07:53 PM
The guy isn't a bad pitcher by any means. Yeah he had a 6+ ERA with Boston but that was really inflated by two awful outings. He pitched in 24 games for the BoSox. Out of those 24 games, heres a quick breakdown.

Outings allowing 0 runs- 18
Outings allowing 1 run- 3
Outings allowing 2 runs- 1
Outings allowing 3 runs- 0
Outings allowing 4 runs- 1
Outings allowing 5 runs- 1

He had two awful outings that messed with his ERA. Other than that, the guy was pretty solid. BTW, those two bad outings came against the powerhouse offenses that are the Cleveland Indians and Baltimore Orioles. Also, just for kicks in his time with the Red Sox, he has 2 blown saves and 5 holds. Plus, as h2b already mentioned, the guy was pretty damn good in the playoffs.

If the Sox have any chance to get him, be it in the Nomar deal or in a separate trade if the Nomar thing never happens, they ought to. Hes a guy who could really help solidify this awful bullpen we currently have.

MHOUSE
12-18-2003, 10:59 PM
I like Williamson. He was solid in the playoffs and I think if he's managed correctly then he can do very well to replace Flash. However, I don't think we should have to throw in Cotts to get him. They get $14 million Maggs and we get $11.5 million Nomar and $2 million dollar Williamson? So Boston breaks even monetarily, adds their outfield bat to replace Manny, and has a good enough bullpen to cover the "loss" of Williamson. I think this is a perfectly good trade without Cotts or even Wright. Give them a mid-level prospect.

Tragg
12-18-2003, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by MHOUSE
I like Williamson. He was solid in the playoffs and I think if he's managed correctly then he can do very well to replace Flash. However, I don't think we should have to throw in Cotts to get him. They get $14 million Maggs and we get $11.5 million Nomar and $2 million dollar Williamson? So Boston breaks even monetarily, adds their outfield bat to replace Manny, and has a good enough bullpen to cover the "loss" of Williamson. I think this is a perfectly good trade without Cotts or even Wright. Give them a mid-level prospect.

Give them NO prospect.

We are the team getting the starkly inferior offensive player (and the position really isn't relevant - what is relevant is to compare Maggs plus valentin to Nomar and Maggs' replacement - like I said, we lose offense and a lot more than Williamson gives us in pitching) - and we'd still have Valentin - shouldn't this at least be contingent on trading him somewhere?

If we can't move Nomar, why are we doing this anyway? Why can't this trade wait until we have a place to ship our excess to? It's like we're the bitch of this whole deal.

CubKilla
12-18-2003, 11:20 PM
Ritchie's available last I checked. GO GET HIM KW!!!!! Should be able to sign him for next to nothing this time around because Ritchie IS NOTHING!

MHOUSE
12-18-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Ritchie's available last I checked. GO GET HIM KW!!!!! Should be able to sign him for next to nothing this time around because Ritchie IS NOTHING!

Give him a non-roster invite on the chance that he could be the 2004 Esteban Loaiza. At least it would make that trade a little better if he produced for us.