PDA

View Full Version : Success with young pitching


jeremyb1
01-31-2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:
Why is it that all the Mark Mulder's, Barry Zito's, Roy Oswalt's, Mark Prior's, Dontrelle Willis', Josh Beckett's and their ilk never seem to pitch for the Sox?

Why is that?

Why is it that all the "can't miss kid' pitchers for the Sox either wind up like Jon Rauch and Corwin Malone (injured) or like Jon Garland and Danny Wright (guys who usually lose as many games as they win) or like Aaron Myette and David (?) West (a whole lot of nothing).

Where are all the impact pitchers Jeremy? Where are the twenty game winners Jeremy? Where are the post season award winners?

Perhaps if the Sox had a track record of some success with their pitchers I'd share your optimism but I don't see them. Perhaps my eyes are failing me and you can enlighten me with where they are all hiding.

I thought I'd start a new thread to address the arguments in Lip's post here because this debate about our success with young pitching seems to come up often.

First lets take a look at how many good home grown pitchers most clubs have developed. I'll look at pitchers 26 and younger and they will be associated with the club they debuted with. The pitcher will have to be considered a top of the rotation starter for the purposes of this survey. I'll include any starter with a full season with an ERA under or very close to 4 with a few exceptions here and there when it seems appropriate.

Yankees - 0
Boston - 0
Toronto - 1 (Halladay)
Baltimore - 0
Tampa Bay - 0
Minnesota - 1 (Santana)
White Sox - 2 (Buehrle, Wells)
Kansas City - 0
Cleveland - 0
Detroit - 0
Oakland - 2 (Mulder, Zito)
Seatle - 1 (Pinero)
Anaheim - 0
Texas - 0
Atlanta - 2 (Horacio Ramirez, Perez)
Florida - 3 (Penny, Willis, Beckett)
Phillie - 1 (Padilla)
Montreal - 1 (Armas Jr.)
Mets - 1 (Seo)
Cubs - 3 (Wood, Zambrano, Prior)
Astros - 2 (Redding, Oswalt)
Cardinals - 0
Pittsburg - 0
Milwaukee - 0
Giants - 0
L.A. - 0
Arizona - 1 (Webb)
Padres - 2 (Eaton, Peavy)

That gives us an average of .76 successful young pitchers developed by each organization. 14 of the 30 teams - nearly half - don't haven't developed a successful young pitcher recently. That makes the White Sox better than average at developing young pitchers even if you decided not to count Wells for whatever reason.

As someone else pointed out, having high draft picks which the Sox have not also helps. Wood, Prior, Beckett, Mulder and Zito were all top ten picks in the draft.

So, particularly in light of this reasearch my conclusion is that the White Sox are no worse at developing young pitching that other organizations. The overwhelming majority of young pitching prospects do NOT become successful major league pitchers. The failure to understand this and the fact that fans ussually take notice of their own team's failed prospects moreso than other clubs leads people to get the impression the White Sox have a poor track record with pitching prospects when this is not the case. Buehrle and Wells are all-star calliber players and Garland still has a few seasons to become a successful young pitcher.

munchman33
01-31-2004, 09:22 PM
I agree. While the draft picks the sox have had in recent drafts were not in the first half, they have done a pretty good job of scouting and developing pitching talent. I think Honel will be the next of our bunch to shine.

Lip Man 1
01-31-2004, 09:22 PM
Jeremy:

With respect Wells is not an All Star caliber pitcher, never was and never will be. Ditto for Jon Garland.

For an organization that refuses to spend money acquiring proven, winning pitchers because they cost to much, even having the two pitchers you mentioned is laughable if you expect to win a championship. Two pitchers in how much time?

It wouldn't be so laughable if the Sox went out and spent what was needed to surround them but they don't. That's a recipe for mediocrity. Which was exactly what we've had for the past six years (average record: 83-79)

This organization hasn't come close to duplicating the staffs of the early 90's which at least had young pitchers like Jack McDowell, Wilson Alvarez and Jason Bere make the All Star Teams and pitch in the post season.

Thanks for playing...we have some lovely parting gifts for our contestents.

Lip

ChiWhiteSox1337
01-31-2004, 09:28 PM
Notice how the Marlins and Cubs both have 3?(Well 4 for the Marlins if you include Burnett) The Marlins got Burnett with the 2nd pick in the 1998 draft after getting the pick in a trade and Willis from the Cubs after trading alfonseca and Clement. The Cubs got all that pitching by sucking for a long time. The Sox always seem to finish atleast .500 now and can never get a really high pick.

joecrede
01-31-2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

With respect Wells is not an All Star caliber pitcher, never was and never will be. Ditto for Jon Garland.

Lip, who are current pitchers who are better than those two at the same age?

munchman33
01-31-2004, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

With respect Wells is not an All Star caliber pitcher, never was and never will be. Ditto for Jon Garland.



I disagree about Kip. He had an era in the low 3's last year. If he wasn't pitching for the Pirates, he might have won twenty games.

He still becomes a head case and gets lit up every now and then, but that just speaks to how good he was the rest of the year for his era to be so low. Once he does, he'll be absolutely lights out.

-Munchie

Lip Man 1
01-31-2004, 09:36 PM
Joe:

Tell me how old they are and I'll look around. I'm sure I can find a bunch.

Lip

SEALgep
01-31-2004, 09:37 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lip Man 1
[B]Jeremy:

With respect Wells is not an All Star caliber pitcher, never was and never will be. Ditto for Jon Garland.

Hawks pick to click for the season is Garland, and he believes he will notch up 18-20 wins. I'm inclined to believe this is very possible.

Lip Man 1
01-31-2004, 09:42 PM
Seal:

Rich King said Garland and Koch were the keys to any chances the Sox have to be successful this season in his interview.

We'll see. I hope so. Everyone seems to be saying that if the Sox can make it to the post season then "luck," will take over...I'd love to see how "lucky" the Sox are.

Lip

WinningUgly!
01-31-2004, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by joecrede


Lip, who are current pitchers who are better than those two at the same age?


Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe:

Tell me how old they are and I'll look around. I'm sure I can find a bunch.

Kip Wells is 26, Jon Garland is 24.

Rex Hudler
01-31-2004, 11:31 PM
Jeremy, I think you make a very good point. I was having a similar discussion on another board tonight and the information you provided was something we were wondering about. My belief is that the Sox system has not produced the best, but are nowhere near as bad as many Sox fans think.

Our discussion was not limited to pitchers, but your research tends to prove my theory.

Lip, sorry you don't like jeremy's research, but the fact that the Sox don't go out and get other other pitchers to surround the ones they have developed, has nothing to do with what their system has produced. You answered Jeremy with a counterpoint that is a completely different argument.

Buehrle and Wells certainly fit within your original post. Garland is borderline. He does not belong in the top class.

Brian26
01-31-2004, 11:41 PM
Anyone see Larry Monroe in the seminar today on pitching? He's hawking a book for $19 basically telling kids the proper way to pitch and not get hurt. I kid you not.

I'm thinking, why the hell didn't he tell this information to our guys back in 2000/2001/2002?

Eldred, Baldwin, Parque, Simas, Rauch, Sirotka, Howry, the list goes on and on.

Champs2004
01-31-2004, 11:49 PM
Forgot a few....

Cleveland: C.C. Sabathia
Detroit: Mike Maroth, Jeremy Bonderman (both of them will be stars within the next year)
Anaheim: John Lackey, Jarrod Washburn
Seattle: Ryan Franklin, Gil Meche
Montreal: Javier Vazquez
Houston: Wade Miller
Colorado: Jason Jennings, Shawn Chacon
San Francisco: Ryan Jensen

RichH55
02-01-2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by Champs2004
Forgot a few....

Cleveland: C.C. Sabathia
Detroit: Mike Maroth, Jeremy Bonderman (both of them will be stars within the next year)
Anaheim: John Lackey, Jarrod Washburn
Seattle: Ryan Franklin, Gil Meche
Montreal: Javier Vazquez
Houston: Wade Miller
Colorado: Jason Jennings, Shawn Chacon
San Francisco: Ryan Jensen

Chacon will be the closer this year


Ryan Jensen?

And Mike Maroth is terrible

ma-gaga
02-01-2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1

Toronto - 1 (Halladay)
Minnesota - 1 (Santana)
White Sox - 2 (Buehrle, Wells)
Oakland - 2 (Mulder, Zito)
Seatle - 1 (Pinero)
-------------------------------
Atlanta - 2 (Horacio Ramirez, Perez)
Florida - 3 (Penny, Willis, Beckett)
Phillie - 1 (Padilla)
Montreal - 1 (Armas Jr.)
Mets - 1 (Seo)
Cubs - 3 (Wood, Zambrano, Prior)
Astros - 2 (Redding, Oswalt)
Arizona - 1 (Webb)
Padres - 2 (Eaton, Peavy)


Great idea, but you HAVE to make an adjustment for the league that they are in. It's not a coincidence that there are 7 er... 6 (Kip Wells doesn't count as an AL stud) pitchers on your list in the AL, and 17 from the NL.

Also, even though I think that Santana will deserve a spot on this list, but I wouldn't qualify him yet. How many career games has he started?

Is this just the guys that would qualify from last season? Or is it from the last 5 years? I'd probably adjust my requirements by 10%. Say that AL pitchers need era < 4.00, and NL pitchers need an era < 3.60. See what that does. I don't truly believe that the NL pitchers are that much "better" than AL pitchers, just that they face a little less competition each outing.

Maybe do a 3 year average...

ma-gaga
02-01-2004, 02:08 AM
alright. I made a list. I did each league's Top 5 in ERA's over the last 5 years. I did the top 5 because that's all B-Reference had on their leaderboards. I did 5 years, to gain a little perspective. The top 10 would have been better, but this works. Maybe I'll stay up a little longer and put that together. I got rid of duplications, so here's the list cut and dry:

Player Team 1 Team 2
Webb Arizona NA
Glavine Atlanta NA
Perez Atlanta NA
Millwood Atlanta NA
Mussina Baltimore NA
Schilling Boston traded to Baltimore
Clemens Boston NA
Prior Chicago Cubs NA
Maddux Chicago Cubs NA
Sirotka Chicago Sox NA
Buehrle Chicago Sox NA
Colon Cleveland NA
Smoltz Detroit traded to Atlanta
Oswalt Houston NA
Kile Houston NA
Garcia Houston traded to Seattle
Cone Kansas City NA
Rosado Kansas City NA
Schmidt LA Dodgers NA
Martinez LA Dodgers NA
D'Amico Milwaukee NA
Radke Minnesota NA
Johnson Montreal NA
Hudson Oakland NA
Zito Oakland NA
Mulder Oakland NA
Wakefield Pittsburgh NA
Loaiza Pittsburgh NA
Burkett San Francisco NA
Hampton Seattle NA
Mays Seattle traded to Minnesota
Lowe Seattle traded to Boston
Brown Texas NA
Halladay Toronto NA

Lots of Seattle, Houston, Oakland and Atlanta names here. Chicago Sox come in respectfully with 2 names. I have no idea who the hell Rosado is... Apparently he was good, kind of like Joe Mays was good.

The only names that really seem odd is Loiaza since he didn't do well until his 4th team. None of the San Diego or Florida kids made the list. Maybe they will if I go to the top ten list. I think the trick is to develop TWO of these guys at the same time. That seems to help with the success of the team. I don't know how Oakland hasn't won the WS in the last 3 years...

gosox41
02-01-2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

With respect Wells is not an All Star caliber pitcher, never was and never will be. Ditto for Jon Garland.

have some lovely parting gifts for our contestents.

Lip


Here's something you hate Lip: actualy numbers.

I looked at Jason Bere's All Star year, 1994 and compared it with Kip's 2003.

IP H ER BB SO W L ERA
Bere 141.2 119 60 80 127 12 2 3.81
Wells 197.1 171 72 76 147 10 9 3.28


Obviously Bere pitched less in 1994 due to the strike. Plus some numbers don't tell the whole story, like wins and losses. If Bere had pitched for a bad Pittsburgh team and Wells had pitched behind the offense of the 1994 Sox, who do you think would have more wins.

Here's a little deeper look into their stats:

WHIP K/BB
Bere 1.40 1.59
Wells 1.25 1.93

This probably tells a lot about who was more effective. Maybe Wells won't technically 'be al All Star' since he pitches for Pittsburgh and isn't recognized. But in '94 the Sox were good and Bere was being raved about. The hype isn't there with Wells, but that doesn't mean he's not statistically a better pitcher.

Should I ask for another contestant???? :D:

Bob

ondafarm
02-01-2004, 11:14 AM
I think the White Sox right now have no plan of how to develop good young starting pitching. Paul Richards did when he ran the minors but nobody since then has. A good prospect should pitch about 500 innings in the minors. He should also work with a variety of catchers both wily veterans and up and coming young guns. The pitching coaches at the different levels should coordinate on developing good breaking stuff, change of pace, pitching strategy and mechanics. But all that seems beyond the White Sox organization.

Man Soo Lee
02-01-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
So, particularly in light of this reasearch my conclusion is that the White Sox are no worse at developing young pitching that other organizations. The overwhelming majority of young pitching prospects do NOT become successful major league pitchers.

So if the average team is lucky to develop one successful starting pitcher, doesn't that suggest that they will have to pay veteran pitchers if they intend to win?

Lip Man 1
02-01-2004, 01:13 PM
Bob:

"You have lies, damn lies and statistics..."--Mark Twain.

The only number that matters is wins / losses both individual and team.

Here's what matters Bob...83-79 the Sox average record for the past six years. Mediocrity thy name is White Sox.

Something isn't working Bob and that's all that matters. The stat geeks can now return to figuring out how to change the world with their computers.

As Daver so correctly posted for every Sox Mark Buehrle (or if you beleive Jeremy, Kip Wells or Jon Garland) there are 50 Scott Ruffcorn's and that's not cutting it.

and it's interesting that one of my original questions still hasn't been touched, why are all the great young pitchers throwing on loaded staffs in Oakland, Houston etc. Why can't have Sox have a great young staff that actually produces?

Care to answer that?

Lip

Lip Man 1
02-01-2004, 01:19 PM
Man Soo Lee:

That's what the good teams do, which obviously excludes the Sox because they can't afford to pay for pitching (if you believe the organization).

And since as Jeremy pointed out the Sox have only developed two or three (if you believe him) good pitchers over x years, the conclusion is that the Sox are forever doomed to mediocrity.

Jeremy says other teams have done worse then the Sox...great. That and fifty cents will get you a phone call in October because the Sox are always home watching other teams play aren't they?

I congratulate Jeremy for proving his point and for his time spent proving a meaningless point, when the bottom line is winning.

Lip

GW83
02-01-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
Notice how the Marlins and Cubs both have 3?(Well 4 for the Marlins if you include Burnett) The Marlins got Burnett with the 2nd pick in the 1998 draft after getting the pick in a trade and Willis from the Cubs after trading alfonseca and Clement. The Cubs got all that pitching by sucking for a long time. The Sox always seem to finish atleast .500 now and can never get a really high pick.

First of all in baseball draft picks are not traded. The only time draft picks are switched is when a team signs another team's free agent. And the team that signed the free agent isn't picking in the top half of the draft.

Second. Burnett was picked in the 8th ROUND by the NY Mets. He came to Florida in the Piazza trade.

They took Josh Beckett with the second pick in the 99 draft. Maybe that's who you were thinking of?

GW83
02-01-2004, 03:23 PM
Mulder: 2nd pick of the 98 draft. Pat Burrell of the Phils was the first. Since they don't trade draft picks in baseball. How can the Sox get Mulder?

Zito 9th player in the 99 draft. Sox drafted 15th.

Beckett 2nd player in the 99 draft.

Prior 2nd in the 2001 draft. Sox drafted 27th.

The Sox never had a chance to draft any of these guys. It's easy when you're drafting high to get those guys you named.

The Sox had plenty of chances to draft:

Willis was 8th round pick.

Oswalt was a 23rd round pick.

But that's the breaks.

Drafting pitchers isn't an exact science. Back in 1984 the Cubs drafted two pitchers with their first two picks. And Greg Maddux was the second pick.

ChiWhiteSox1337
02-01-2004, 03:44 PM
yeah..I wasn't thinking too well last night. The point I was trying to say was that the marlins got all their young pitching talent due to them trading away all of their good players and not winning games. The cubs didn't win at all either and got to stock pile pitching, too. The Sox have been around .500 each season the past few seasons so they haven't been able to get a really high pick to draft the priors and the becketts. There are still a lot of guys though like Willis, Oswalt and Buerhle who turn out to be good despite not being high draft picks. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like the Sox ever get those guys, other than Buehrle the past few years

GW83
02-01-2004, 03:56 PM
To get a guy like Buehrle is awesome. But look at the Cubs. Woods 5th player in 95 or 96. Prior 2nd in 2001. They drafted high, got a little lucky that 4 teams in 95 and 1 team in 2001 didn't choose Woods or Prior.

Back in 98 or 99 the Sox drafted something like 14 pitchers with their first 15 picks. You would hope by now at least some of those pitchers would be established major leaguers. But that hasn't happen.

munchman33
02-01-2004, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

Why can't have Sox have a great young staff that actually produces?

Care to answer that?

Lip

Because of all the fans who continually whine that we never have any proven players. Management gives in and makes moves, for better or worse (Wells, Ritchie, Colon).

gosox41
02-01-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

"You have lies, damn lies and statistics..."--Mark Twain.

The only number that matters is wins / losses both individual and team.

Here's what matters Bob...83-79 the Sox average record for the past six years. Mediocrity thy name is White Sox.

Something isn't working Bob and that's all that matters. The stat geeks can now return to figuring out how to change the world with their computers.

As Daver so correctly posted for every Sox Mark Buehrle (or if you beleive Jeremy, Kip Wells or Jon Garland) there are 50 Scott Ruffcorn's and that's not cutting it.

and it's interesting that one of my original questions still hasn't been touched, why are all the great young pitchers throwing on loaded staffs in Oakland, Houston etc. Why can't have Sox have a great young staff that actually produces?

Care to answer that?

Lip

Lip,
I was responding to your quote. I'm paraphrasing here, but you were speaking highly of Bere while stating something like "Wells never was and never will be an All Star pitcher."

The problem is my numbers just proved you wrong in the above comparison. So instead of admitting defeat, you quote a famous writer (who wrote fiction so take that for what's worth) and then flip the argument tot he big picture.

Does that mean you admit I'm right about Wells? Or does it all of the sudden not matter. LipI thought being a writer would help you be more objective and maybe admit you're wrong in your thinking, even if you didn't do your research, which is something I thought is important to the credibility of every writer. I presented factual research. I urge you to come up with other factual research to discredit it instead of ripping simple stats.


Now if you want to discuss the Sox 83-79 record as a whole I'd be more then happy to. There are numerous reasons for it, and one is the fact that Kip Wells is no longer here. Based on your logic of "all that matters is 83-79" you're saying that Kip would be a 10-8 pitcher if he pitched for the Sox even though the Sox scored more runs then the Pirates.

AS for developing pitching talent, the Sox have done a decent job. Definitely not great, but Don Cooper makes a huge difference.

Bob

GW83
02-01-2004, 08:14 PM
Just because the White Sox score more runs than the Pirates doesn't mean that Wells would win more than 10-12 games. There are many cases where two pitchers on the same team aren't given the same run support. The Dodgers last year gave Nomo something like 2 runs a game. While giving Brown 4 runs.

But that being said, that trade was a bust. One of the worst trades ever. Even if Fogg and Wells are only third and fourth starters.

jeremyb1
02-01-2004, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by Champs2004
Forgot a few....

Cleveland: C.C. Sabathia
Detroit: Mike Maroth, Jeremy Bonderman (both of them will be stars within the next year)
Anaheim: John Lackey, Jarrod Washburn
Seattle: Ryan Franklin, Gil Meche
Montreal: Javier Vazquez
Houston: Wade Miller
Colorado: Jason Jennings, Shawn Chacon
San Francisco: Ryan Jensen

Sabathia was a huge omission on my part but I considered nearly all the other pitchers and decided not to include them because they never posted an ERA at or below 4 or they're over 26 years old.

jeremyb1
02-01-2004, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Great idea, but you HAVE to make an adjustment for the league that they are in. It's not a coincidence that there are 7 er... 6 (Kip Wells doesn't count as an AL stud) pitchers on your list in the AL, and 17 from the NL.

Also, even though I think that Santana will deserve a spot on this list, but I wouldn't qualify him yet. How many career games has he started?

Is this just the guys that would qualify from last season? Or is it from the last 5 years? I'd probably adjust my requirements by 10%. Say that AL pitchers need era < 4.00, and NL pitchers need an era < 3.60. See what that does. I don't truly believe that the NL pitchers are that much "better" than AL pitchers, just that they face a little less competition each outing.

Maybe do a 3 year average...

Yeah I was pretty well aware of those limitations. Ideally I would've used BP's VORP since that's adjusted for park effects, defense, and a number of other factors. I worried, however, that by making it too complicated some posters such as Lip (who apparently will only judge pitcher by W-L records) would lose interest or question the validity of the results.

jeremyb1
02-01-2004, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by GW83
Just because the White Sox score more runs than the Pirates doesn't mean that Wells would win more than 10-12 games. There are many cases where two pitchers on the same team aren't given the same run support. The Dodgers last year gave Nomo something like 2 runs a game. While giving Brown 4 runs.

But that being said, that trade was a bust. One of the worst trades ever. Even if Fogg and Wells are only third and fourth starters.

Yeah, its my opinion that people need to rethink their opinions if they seriously believe that a pitcher that allows 7 earned runs on 12 hits and three home runs with 4 walks and 1 strikeout and picks up the win is a better pitcher than a guy who allows one run in 8 IP with 5 hits 14 K's and 2 BB's yet picks up the loss. Pitchers are not responsible for their teams offense in my opinion.

Lip Man 1
02-01-2004, 10:29 PM
Bob:

Jason Bere was a dominant pitcher the closest thing the Sox have had to a Roger Clemens type. Here's some numbers right back at you. (See I can play computer geek too!)

1994 - Led AL and set a club record with an .857 winning percentage.

127 strikeouts, tied for 7th in the AL

Was 7-1 with a 3.78 ERA and 65 strikeouts in 12 road games.

Was 19-2 with a 3.26 ERA and 179 strikeouts over his last 31 starts.

Was the youngest AL pitcher in the All Star Game since 1981 (Britt Burns)

Struck out 14 A's on 6/13

Averaged 8.1 strikeouts per 9 innings

1993 - Finished 2nd to Tim Salmon for AL Rookie Of The Year

Struck out 12 in 6.2 innings against California on 9/20

Struck out 13 and allowed 2 hits in 8 innings against Boston on 9/8

Led staff in hits per 9 innings and strikeouts per 9 innings.

Went 7-2 with a 1.95 ERA in his last 11 starts

Led AL rookie pitchers in wins, starts and innings pitched.

ML career - owns two of the Sox top single game strikeout performances. In 93-94 went 24-7 .774

Is that good enough for you? Kip Wells couldn't make a pimple on Jason's rear end!... but both of us are overlooking the whole point of the exercize as we play 'can you top this..."

Look at my original statement to Jeremy: Perhaps if the Sox had a track record of some success with their pitchers I'd share your optimism but I don't see them.

So the Sox maybe have developed three "quality" (cough,cough) pitchers in x years (five?, eight?, ten ?) So what that the Sox may have developed "more" quality pitchers then the San Diego Padres or the Minnesota Twins or the Cincinnati Reds? (all of whom have gotten to the World series by the way...) Woop-de-do! (To quote the famous wordsmith Shaq)

The point is that to become a championship contender using "can't miss kids," requires you to develop at the same time , five, six, or eight studs who collectively blow away other AL hitters and the Sox haven't done that have they? (In fact nobody has (the closest anybody has come have been the Braves of the early 90's, the Sox of the early 90's, the A's and Astros of today, and they only had three)

Jeremy wins the battle with his numbers and once again fails to see the big picture. The Sox can't develop enough quality can't miss kids, and they won't (or can't) go out and sign free agent pitchers to round out the staff providing experience and depth.

So how the hell do you win?

and to make matters even more ludricrous Jeremy's opinion is that the Sox shouldn't go out and get other pitchers, he'd rather have guys like Rauch, Cotts, Diaz, Adkins and other no names with less then stellar minor league stats get the ball.

That's his right but to me it's insane. As presently constituted the Sox have no chance to succeed in the most important area of the game... pitching.

Can we at least agree on that?

Lip

Rex Hudler
02-01-2004, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Man Soo Lee:

That's what the good teams do, which obviously excludes the Sox because they can't afford to pay for pitching (if you believe the organization).

And since as Jeremy pointed out the Sox have only developed two or three (if you believe him) good pitchers over x years, the conclusion is that the Sox are forever doomed to mediocrity.

Jeremy says other teams have done worse then the Sox...great. That and fifty cents will get you a phone call in October because the Sox are always home watching other teams play aren't they?

I congratulate Jeremy for proving his point and for his time spent proving a meaningless point, when the bottom line is winning.

Lip

So if we had a loaded staff of young guys we developed like Oakland or Houston, and went 75-87 then your point would be??

GW83
02-02-2004, 12:28 AM
Jeremy wins the battle with his numbers and once again fails to see the big picture. The Sox can't develop enough quality can't miss kids, and they won't (or can't) go out and sign free agent pitchers to round out the staff providing experience and depth.

So how the hell do you win?

and to make matters even more ludricrous Jeremy's opinion is that the Sox shouldn't go out and get other pitchers, he'd rather have guys like Rauch, Cotts, Diaz, Adkins and other no names with less then stellar minor league stats get the ball.

That's his right but to me it's insane. As presently constituted the Sox have no chance to succeed in the most important area of the game... pitching.

Can we at least agree on that?

Lip [/B]

You make it seem as though developing can't miss pitchers is easy. Again look at the draft and see how many "can't miss" pitcher were drafted and actually missed. It's very hard to build a staff. The A's did it with two players picked in the top 9 of their draft. The Sox have missed on some players and made bad decisions with others (trading Wells) and others have gotten hurt.

Edwin Correa was a can't miss and people thought Hawk was crazy trading him to Texas. But he got hurt and did nothing.

jeremyb1
02-02-2004, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

Jason Bere was a dominant pitcher the closest thing the Sox have had to a Roger Clemens type. Here's some numbers right back at you. (See I can play computer geek too!)

1994 - Led AL and set a club record with an .857 winning percentage.

127 strikeouts, tied for 7th in the AL

Was 7-1 with a 3.78 ERA and 65 strikeouts in 12 road games.

Was 19-2 with a 3.26 ERA and 179 strikeouts over his last 31 starts.

Was the youngest AL pitcher in the All Star Game since 1981 (Britt Burns)

Struck out 14 A's on 6/13

Averaged 8.1 strikeouts per 9 innings

1993 - Finished 2nd to Tim Salmon for AL Rookie Of The Year

Struck out 12 in 6.2 innings against California on 9/20

Struck out 13 and allowed 2 hits in 8 innings against Boston on 9/8

Led staff in hits per 9 innings and strikeouts per 9 innings.

Went 7-2 with a 1.95 ERA in his last 11 starts

Led AL rookie pitchers in wins, starts and innings pitched.

ML career - owns two of the Sox top single game strikeout performances. In 93-94 went 24-7 .774

Is that good enough for you? Kip Wells couldn't make a pimple on Jason's rear end!... but both of us are overlooking the whole point of the exercize as we play 'can you top this..."

Look at my original statement to Jeremy: Perhaps if the Sox had a track record of some success with their pitchers I'd share your optimism but I don't see them.

So the Sox maybe have developed three "quality" (cough,cough) pitchers in x years (five?, eight?, ten ?) So what that the Sox may have developed "more" quality pitchers then the San Diego Padres or the Minnesota Twins or the Cincinnati Reds? (all of whom have gotten to the World series by the way...) Woop-de-do! (To quote the famous wordsmith Shaq)

The point is that to become a championship contender using "can't miss kids," requires you to develop at the same time , five, six, or eight studs who collectively blow away other AL hitters and the Sox haven't done that have they? (In fact nobody has (the closest anybody has come have been the Braves of the early 90's, the Sox of the early 90's, the A's and Astros of today, and they only had three)

Jeremy wins the battle with his numbers and once again fails to see the big picture. The Sox can't develop enough quality can't miss kids, and they won't (or can't) go out and sign free agent pitchers to round out the staff providing experience and depth.

So how the hell do you win?

and to make matters even more ludricrous Jeremy's opinion is that the Sox shouldn't go out and get other pitchers, he'd rather have guys like Rauch, Cotts, Diaz, Adkins and other no names with less then stellar minor league stats get the ball.

That's his right but to me it's insane. As presently constituted the Sox have no chance to succeed in the most important area of the game... pitching.

Can we at least agree on that?

Lip

You can make an argument that the A's developed three young starting pitchers that have been the biggest reason they've made the playoffs four seasons in a row. Thats a far cry from 8 all-star calliber pitchers. All I can say is that if Kip Wells was in our rotation (Loazia, Buehrle, Wells, Garland, TBD) we'd have by far the best rotation in the central and arguably the fourth best rotation in the AL after the A's, Red Sox, and Yanks.

I don't understand your argument about signing pitchers, Lip. You act as though I prefer Rauch to Schilling. I'll go on the record right now if there's any confusion: I prefer the rotation of Loaiza, Buehrle, Millwood, Ponson, and Colon to the rotation of Loazia, Buehrle, Garland, Diaz, and Rauch. However, since its clear this club does not have 30+ million laying around to spend on starting pitching I prefer choosing a pitcher from a number of qualified starting candidates that will make the major league minimum other than paying the Rick Hellings of the world a million dollars or more.

red faber
02-02-2004, 03:06 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

Jason Bere was a dominant pitcher the closest thing the Sox have had to a Roger Clemens type. Here's some numbers right back at you. (See I can play computer geek too!)

1994 - Led AL and set a club record with an .857 winning percentage.

127 strikeouts, tied for 7th in the AL

Was 7-1 with a 3.78 ERA and 65 strikeouts in 12 road games.

Was 19-2 with a 3.26 ERA and 179 strikeouts over his last 31 starts.

Was the youngest AL pitcher in the All Star Game since 1981 (Britt Burns)

Struck out 14 A's on 6/13

Averaged 8.1 strikeouts per 9 innings

1993 - Finished 2nd to Tim Salmon for AL Rookie Of The Year

Struck out 12 in 6.2 innings against California on 9/20

Struck out 13 and allowed 2 hits in 8 innings against Boston on 9/8

Led staff in hits per 9 innings and strikeouts per 9 innings.

Went 7-2 with a 1.95 ERA in his last 11 starts

Led AL rookie pitchers in wins, starts and innings pitched.

ML career - owns two of the Sox top single game strikeout performances. In 93-94 went 24-7 .774

Is that good enough for you? Kip Wells couldn't make a pimple on Jason's rear end!... but both of us are overlooking the whole point of the exercize as we play 'can you top this..."

Look at my original statement to Jeremy: Perhaps if the Sox had a track record of some success with their pitchers I'd share your optimism but I don't see them.

So the Sox maybe have developed three "quality" (cough,cough) pitchers in x years (five?, eight?, ten ?) So what that the Sox may have developed "more" quality pitchers then the San Diego Padres or the Minnesota Twins or the Cincinnati Reds? (all of whom have gotten to the World series by the way...) Woop-de-do! (To quote the famous wordsmith Shaq)

The point is that to become a championship contender using "can't miss kids," requires you to develop at the same time , five, six, or eight studs who collectively blow away other AL hitters and the Sox haven't done that have they? (In fact nobody has (the closest anybody has come have been the Braves of the early 90's, the Sox of the early 90's, the A's and Astros of today, and they only had three)

Jeremy wins the battle with his numbers and once again fails to see the big picture. The Sox can't develop enough quality can't miss kids, and they won't (or can't) go out and sign free agent pitchers to round out the staff providing experience and depth.

So how the hell do you win?

and to make matters even more ludricrous Jeremy's opinion is that the Sox shouldn't go out and get other pitchers, he'd rather have guys like Rauch, Cotts, Diaz, Adkins and other no names with less then stellar minor league stats get the ball.

That's his right but to me it's insane. As presently constituted the Sox have no chance to succeed in the most important area of the game... pitching.



Can we at least agree on that?

Lip



i agree with you lip!!!

having pitching talent means absolutely nothing,if you can't develop it.

hold2dibber
02-02-2004, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by GW83
You make it seem as though developing can't miss pitchers is easy. Again look at the draft and see how many "can't miss" pitcher were drafted and actually missed. It's very hard to build a staff. The A's did it with two players picked in the top 9 of their draft. The Sox have missed on some players and made bad decisions with others (trading Wells) and others have gotten hurt.

Edwin Correa was a can't miss and people thought Hawk was crazy trading him to Texas. But he got hurt and did nothing.

If I may, you're missing Lip's point, I think. His point is that whether it is easy or not to develop top flight pitchers, the fact is that the Sox have (in his view) committed to trying to win via that route. And they've failed. You can argue that they're as good or even better than most other MLB teams at developing top flight pitchers. But if they're going to be a championship caliber team using the "develop your own pitchers" approach, they can't be "as good or better" than everyone else at developing pitchers - they have to be outstanding at it, they have to be far and away the best. And they aren't and there's little reason to think that they will be any time in the near future (they don't have a Prior or a Burnett burning through the system).

Maximo
02-02-2004, 08:39 AM
They don't all have to be Priors and Mulders either. A couple of guys with attitudes that throw high and inside would help every once in a while.

Where have you gone Pete Vukovich?

gosox41
02-02-2004, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by GW83
Just because the White Sox score more runs than the Pirates doesn't mean that Wells would win more than 10-12 games. There are many cases where two pitchers on the same team aren't given the same run support. The Dodgers last year gave Nomo something like 2 runs a game. While giving Brown 4 runs.

But that being said, that trade was a bust. One of the worst trades ever. Even if Fogg and Wells are only third and fourth starters.

I think over time those things even themselves out. If a pitcher pitches for a team for 5 years and in those 5 years the team averages 6 runs a game, but in Season 1 only averages 3 a game for just one pitcher, it will all come back in the long run.

It's impoosible to determine you many wins Wells would have had last season if he pitched for the Sox, but I'm willing to be it would be more then the 10 he had in Pitt.

Bob

ma-gaga
02-02-2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
However, since its clear this club does not have 30+ million laying around to spend on starting pitching I prefer choosing a pitcher from a number of qualified starting candidates that will make the major league minimum other than paying the Rick Hellings of the world a million dollars or more.

Isn't the veteran's minimum salary = $1.0MM? Helling isn't a bad signing for that number. He's not a GOOD signing, but he's not a BAD signing either.

Maybe I've missed it, did you provide a list of "a number of qualified starting candidates that will make the major league minimum" that are available? or are you just talking about the W.Sox AAA pitching staff??

gosox41
02-02-2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

Jason Bere was a dominant pitcher the closest thing the Sox have had to a Roger Clemens type. Here's some numbers right back at you. (See I can play computer geek too!)

1994 - Led AL and set a club record with an .857 winning percentage.

127 strikeouts, tied for 7th in the AL

Was 7-1 with a 3.78 ERA and 65 strikeouts in 12 road games.

Was 19-2 with a 3.26 ERA and 179 strikeouts over his last 31 starts.

Was the youngest AL pitcher in the All Star Game since 1981 (Britt Burns)

Struck out 14 A's on 6/13

Averaged 8.1 strikeouts per 9 innings

1993 - Finished 2nd to Tim Salmon for AL Rookie Of The Year

Struck out 12 in 6.2 innings against California on 9/20

Struck out 13 and allowed 2 hits in 8 innings against Boston on 9/8

Led staff in hits per 9 innings and strikeouts per 9 innings.

Went 7-2 with a 1.95 ERA in his last 11 starts

Led AL rookie pitchers in wins, starts and innings pitched.

ML career - owns two of the Sox top single game strikeout performances. In 93-94 went 24-7 .774

Is that good enough for you? Kip Wells couldn't make a pimple on Jason's rear end!... but both of us are overlooking the whole point of the exercize as we play 'can you top this..."

Look at my original statement to Jeremy: Perhaps if the Sox had a track record of some success with their pitchers I'd share your optimism but I don't see them.

So the Sox maybe have developed three "quality" (cough,cough) pitchers in x years (five?, eight?, ten ?) So what that the Sox may have developed "more" quality pitchers then the San Diego Padres or the Minnesota Twins or the Cincinnati Reds? (all of whom have gotten to the World series by the way...) Woop-de-do! (To quote the famous wordsmith Shaq)

The point is that to become a championship contender using "can't miss kids," requires you to develop at the same time , five, six, or eight studs who collectively blow away other AL hitters and the Sox haven't done that have they? (In fact nobody has (the closest anybody has come have been the Braves of the early 90's, the Sox of the early 90's, the A's and Astros of today, and they only had three)

Jeremy wins the battle with his numbers and once again fails to see the big picture. The Sox can't develop enough quality can't miss kids, and they won't (or can't) go out and sign free agent pitchers to round out the staff providing experience and depth.

So how the hell do you win?

and to make matters even more ludricrous Jeremy's opinion is that the Sox shouldn't go out and get other pitchers, he'd rather have guys like Rauch, Cotts, Diaz, Adkins and other no names with less then stellar minor league stats get the ball.

That's his right but to me it's insane. As presently constituted the Sox have no chance to succeed in the most important area of the game... pitching.

Can we at least agree on that?

Lip

I can agree to the fact that the Sox need to do a better job developing pitching and won't win until they do that or sign some good veterans. But I don't think they're as bad as you make them out to be.

As for Bere, I loved him when he was here. All I was doing was responding to a point you made comparing Wells to Bere. I thought it was a valid point and valid response.

On a side note, when you talk about pitching and mental toughness I remember reading an interesting interview on Bere. It may have even been here and done by you though I don't recall. It basically said that Bere altered hs mechanics to be like his hero Clemens and this led to his arm injury. The Sox tried to change him but Bere refused. I think it might have been a Schueler interview.

So basically Bere had something that was working great for him, but instead messed it up to be like his hero. Sounds like a little kid fantasy, not the attitude needed from a major leaguer who has been experiencing success.

Bob

gosox41
02-02-2004, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by red faber
i agree with you lip!!!

having pitching talent means absolutely nothing,if you can't develop it.

The Sox haven't been far off from developing pitching talent when compared to other teams. Of course there is room to get better. One of the few plusses of KW is that he seems to be working the pitcher's slower through the farm system to get them their experience.

People talk about Fernandez and McDowell. If I remember correctly both were top 10 picks. It's a lot easier to discover pitchign talent if you consistently have high picks. There are always going to be pitchers who slide through or are late bloomers or that grow 6 more inches after being drafted and add 30 Lbs. of muscle. It is a crapshoot in the later rounds. Sure Bere worked out, but so did Buehrle and he's at least healthier.

Drafting and developing pitching takes a lot of luck. When you hear things like Houston drafed so-and--so in the 30th round and look how he turned out. All that means is that 30 teams thought so-and-so was at best the 900th best player available. Kind of like teaching, certain pitchers may go into a situation and just click with a pitching coach or find someone who has a similar style, but htat doesn't mean he was a sure thing to be drafted.

Bob

hold2dibber
02-02-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
The Sox haven't been far off from developing pitching talent when compared to other teams. Of course there is room to get better. One of the few plusses of KW is that he seems to be working the pitcher's slower through the farm system to get them their experience.

People talk about Fernandez and McDowell. If I remember correctly both were top 10 picks. It's a lot easier to discover pitchign talent if you consistently have high picks. There are always going to be pitchers who slide through or are late bloomers or that grow 6 more inches after being drafted and add 30 Lbs. of muscle. It is a crapshoot in the later rounds. Sure Bere worked out, but so did Buehrle and he's at least healthier.

Drafting and developing pitching takes a lot of luck. When you hear things like Houston drafed so-and--so in the 30th round and look how he turned out. All that means is that 30 teams thought so-and-so was at best the 900th best player available. Kind of like teaching, certain pitchers may go into a situation and just click with a pitching coach or find someone who has a similar style, but htat doesn't mean he was a sure thing to be drafted.

Bob

I totally agree. But that just further goes to show how nuts it is for an organization to basically refuse to sign veteran, proven MLB pitchers. The Sox count on developing their own pitchers, but developing your own pitchers is a huge crap shoot. Doesn't seem like the best strategy in the world.

All of which goes again to illustrate how truly disasterous the decision to sign Navarro instead of Clemens was. Obviously, Clemens was a hell of a lot better than Navarro and that alone could have made a huge difference for the team in the late '90s. But in addition, had the Navarro signing not back-fired so horribly, perhaps the organization wouldn't be so damn gun shy about free agent pitchers in general.

poorme
02-02-2004, 10:24 AM
I think the underlying theme here is that a low budget team cannot consistently compete for a championship. The A's somehow developed 3 Cy Young type pitchers at the same time. Trying emulate that plan is foolish.

Lip Man 1
02-02-2004, 10:49 AM
Folks:

A few random points.....

Jeremy says: "Since this club does not have 30 million lying around to spend on starting pitching..."

Perhaps a better way of stating it Jeremy would have been, "Since this club chooses not to spend 30 million dollars on starting pitching..."

Remember another one of Ken Williams famous comments: "Unless you're willing to spend 40 million on starting pitchers you better have some young talent come through..."

Considering the restriction on signing pitchers to long term deals I think it's more the team not wanting to spend the money, more then not having it. One thing you have to give the Yankees credit for is the fact that the realized the core to any team and any championship dreams is pitching, pitching, pitching. They react accordingly.

Or as Torn Labrum (Hal) ends his posts, the Sox philosophy is you can never have enough pitching, so why bother...

Hold: Thanks perhaps I didn't make that point clear enough. You are spot on!

Go Sox: The story on Bere did in fact come from Ron Schueler. How accurate that is I can't say. I've never read Jason responding to that charge. I have seen stories where he said he started to hurt in 94, told the Sox and they did nothing but again I can't vouch for how honest that is. Also factoring in I'm sure is the labor impasse that stretched into April 95. I know at least one person that I interviewed for WSI told me he felt they weren't going to play at all in 95 or at least not until the second half. The impression is that guys let themselves get out of shape because they never expected a settlement. (And there wouldn't have been one if Uncle Jerry had his way. It took the federal courts ruling the owners were not barganing in good faith to break the deadlock.)

Lip

Lip Man 1
02-02-2004, 10:52 AM
Hold:

I'm reminded of a column Jay Mariotti wrote once where he said if the Sox had signed Roger Clemens and Moises Alou instead of Albert Belle and Jamie Navarro, there never would have been a White Flag Trade, the franchise would have made the playoffs and they wouldn't have taken the PR hits that the did.

Lip

Rex Hudler
02-02-2004, 10:53 AM
Isn't the veteran's minimum salary = $1.0MM? Helling isn't a bad signing for that number. He's not a GOOD signing, but he's not a BAD signing either.

There is no veteran's minimum salary. The minimum salary for all players is $300,000 (or has it been bumped to $320,000?).

Generally, a club will give a veteran more out of respect, however there is nothing that mandates it.

jabrch
02-02-2004, 11:02 AM
Dontrelle shoulldn't be on the list - he was developed by the Cubs - traded to FLA two years ago for Alfonseca and Clement.

jeremyb1
02-02-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

A few random points.....

Jeremy says: "Since this club does not have 30 million lying around to spend on starting pitching..."

Perhaps a better way of stating it Jeremy would have been, "Since this club chooses not to spend 30 million dollars on starting pitching..."

That's fine. I'll say it til I'm blue in the face, I advocate a Yankees style system with a 180 million dollar payroll and a staff of aces aquired in free agency over developing young pitchers in house. However, I don't really think its worth our time discussing that possibility. At least until ownership changes hands which doesn't appear to be happening any time soon, we are going to have a midlevel payroll which will not allow us to commit a great deal of money to top of the rotation starting pitchers. That requires our club to develop young pitching which I maintain we've been adequate at. There are certainly other clubs that don't spend huge free agent dollars that haven't developed young pitching better than our club (Tigers, Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Padres, etc.).

hold2dibber
02-02-2004, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
That's fine. I'll say it til I'm blue in the face, I advocate a Yankees style system with a 180 million dollar payroll and a staff of aces aquired in free agency over developing young pitchers in house. However, I don't really think its worth our time discussing that possibility. At least until ownership changes hands which doesn't appear to be happening any time soon, we are going to have a midlevel payroll which will not allow us to commit a great deal of money to top of the rotation starting pitchers. That requires our club to develop young pitching which I maintain we've been adequate at. There are certainly other clubs that don't spend huge free agent dollars that haven't developed young pitching better than our club (Tigers, Royals, Pirates, Brewers, Padres, etc.).

I agree. And it's pretty disheartening, because under the circumstances, being adequate at developing young pitchers almost certainly isn't going to be enough to make the team a championship contender (unless they can find about 3 more Esteban Loaiza-type, out of the blue top of the rotation starters on the cheap).

jeremyb1
02-02-2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I agree. And it's pretty disheartening, because under the circumstances, being adequate at developing young pitchers almost certainly isn't going to be enough to make the team a championship contender (unless they can find about 3 more Esteban Loaiza-type, out of the blue top of the rotation starters on the cheap).

Yeah. I think Garland and Buehrle are solid building blocks and Loaiza was a real find. It'd be really nice if we'd held onto Kip Wells. Perhaps most dissapointing of all is Rauch's injury. Shoulder surgery can be incredibly tough to bounce back from (look at Baldwin, Sirotka, and Parque) and in my opinion Rauch had superstar written all over him in the very near future at the time of his injury. Good command, very good stuff, and an excellent feel for how to pitch. His numbers in '00 were just incredible. Unfortunately, outside of maybe Honel there don't look to be any franchise pitchers on the way. The best bet seems to be hoping Garland reaches his considerable upside in the near future while Loaiza and Buehrle remain strong. Hopefully we'll pick up some promising pitchers in the upcoming draft with our compensation picks.

hold2dibber
02-02-2004, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Yeah. I think Garland and Buehrle are solid building blocks and Loaiza was a real find. It'd be really nice if we'd held onto Kip Wells. Perhaps most dissapointing of all is Rauch's injury. Shoulder surgery can be incredibly tough to bounce back from (look at Baldwin, Sirotka, and Parque) and in my opinion Rauch had superstar written all over him in the very near future at the time of his injury. Good command, very good stuff, and an excellent feel for how to pitch. His numbers in '00 were just incredible. Unfortunately, outside of maybe Honel there don't look to be any franchise pitchers on the way. The best bet seems to be hoping Garland reaches his considerable upside in the near future while Loaiza and Buehrle remain strong. Hopefully we'll pick up some promising pitchers in the upcoming draft with our compensation picks.

I still hold out hope that Rauch will be a solid contributor at the major league level, but I agree that hopes that he would become a dominant, top of the rotation starter seem unlikely now. With that said, you don't necessarily have to have a Randy Johnson-type at the top of the rotation to win a championship (see the '02 Angels or the pre-Clemens champs of the late '90s). But Garland remains the key. I agree with you that he has been better than most people give him credit for, and in light of the fact that he's still incredibly young there is plenty of reason to think he'll get even better. But if he doesn't take it up to the so-called "next level," I don't see the Sox becoming much of a threat to do much of anything.

GW83
02-02-2004, 02:43 PM
I don't think this has been brought up. The Sox could very well have an Oakland type three aces.

A staff of Buehrle, Sirotka, and Parque could have been pretty damn impressive.

But injuries cut down Parque. Sirotka was traded for Wells. (Which proves at times the organization gives a damn) But in the case of all trades sometime they work for both teams, sometimes it's a steal for one team, sometimes it's a bust for both teams. In the Wells for Sirotka it was a bust for both teams.

ma-gaga
02-02-2004, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
There is no veteran's minimum salary. The minimum salary for all players is $300,000 (or has it been bumped to $320,000?).

Generally, a club will give a veteran more out of respect, however there is nothing that mandates it.

You are correct. I thought there was a "veterans" minimum salary, but I must be confusing it with the NBA...

Randar68
02-02-2004, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

With respect Wells is not an All Star caliber pitcher, never was and never will be. Ditto for Jon Garland.

For an organization that refuses to spend money acquiring proven, winning pitchers because they cost to much, even having the two pitchers you mentioned is laughable if you expect to win a championship. Two pitchers in how much time?

It wouldn't be so laughable if the Sox went out and spent what was needed to surround them but they don't. That's a recipe for mediocrity. Which was exactly what we've had for the past six years (average record: 83-79)

This organization hasn't come close to duplicating the staffs of the early 90's which at least had young pitchers like Jack McDowell, Wilson Alvarez and Jason Bere make the All Star Teams and pitch in the post season.

Thanks for playing...we have some lovely parting gifts for our contestents.

Lip

So in short, you were shown to be incorrect, but, in spite of that, you scoff at the facts without viable argument because you can't bear to stop bashing anything that moves in the Sox front offices or minor leagues long enough to admit when you're wrong???


Classic.

Rauch was Minor League Player of the Year and performed at an expremely high level at AA and in the Olympics before being injured. We have yet to see if he can regain that form or not.

But hey, bash away oh mighty holder of all knowledge negative...

Randar68
02-02-2004, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Yeah. I think Garland and Buehrle are solid building blocks and Loaiza was a real find. It'd be really nice if we'd held onto Kip Wells. Perhaps most dissapointing of all is Rauch's injury. Shoulder surgery can be incredibly tough to bounce back from (look at Baldwin, Sirotka, and Parque) and in my opinion Rauch had superstar written all over him in the very near future at the time of his injury. Good command, very good stuff, and an excellent feel for how to pitch. His numbers in '00 were just incredible. Unfortunately, outside of maybe Honel there don't look to be any franchise pitchers on the way. The best bet seems to be hoping Garland reaches his considerable upside in the near future while Loaiza and Buehrle remain strong. Hopefully we'll pick up some promising pitchers in the upcoming draft with our compensation picks.

Well, often times guys emerge in AA or so who flew under the radar. Buehrle certainly did as do quite a few others. Pacheco, Honel, and Cotts all could become very effective major league pitchers, and if Diaz and Malone can stay healthy, they also have great stuff... add that to Rauch...

hold2dibber
02-02-2004, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Well, often times guys emerge in AA or so who flew under the radar. Buehrle certainly did as do quite a few others. Pacheco, Honel, and Cotts all could become very effective major league pitchers, and if Diaz and Malone can stay healthy, they also have great stuff... add that to Rauch...

Even assuming that the foregoing is true, though, do you (or does anyone else) have an informed opinion concerning how likely any of those guys are to becoming top of the rotation starters? And do the Sox have as many, more or less pitchers who have top of the rotation potential as other organizations? My sense (and I admit that my knowledge on this subject is far from complete) is that the Sox have a lot of guys with "could be a pretty good no. 3 or 4 starter if they continue to develop/stay healthy/learn another pitch/improve control/develop consistent mechanics, etc., etc." potential but not a lot of "unless something goes horribly wrong, he's going to be a top of the rotation pitcher in this league for a lot of years" guys. Although I disagree with much of what Lip has said in this thread, I do tend to agree with his central theme which is, as I take it, that the Sox are relying almost exclusively on home-grown pitching talent, which is a risky proposition at best. They just don't seem to have the home-grown pitching talent on hand or on the way to become a serious WS contender. Maybe Pachecho will turn into a nice Tim Belcher-type starter or a Ramon Ortiz kind of guy, but what are the odds that he turns into David Cone or Bret Saberhagen or Jason Schmidt?

Daver
02-02-2004, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Even assuming that the foregoing is true, though, do you (or does anyone else) have an informed opinion concerning how likely any of those guys are to becoming top of the rotation starters?
Maybe Pachecho will turn into a nice Tim Belcher-type starter or a Ramon Ortiz kind of guy, but what are the odds that he turns into David Cone or Bret Saberhagen or Jason Schmidt?

Pacheco is not a top of the rotation type pitcher,he does not posess overwhelming stuff in any category,what he does posess is the ability to be a ground ball pitcher that gets outs.

Neal Cotts has the potential to be a top of the rotation pitcher,if he can get his mechanics straightened out to a point that they are consistent,I'll give you that is a big if,but I also keep in mind the fact that Randy Johnson did not become an overwhelming pitcher until he was in his late twenties.

Kris Honel has everything it takes to be an ace of the staff,he throws strikes,is consistent in the strike zone,has the ability to change speeds on his fastball that is set up with his changeup,and his knuckle curve breaks a foot and a half,in the zone.Ryan Wing,though still considered a bit of a project,also has the potential to be a top of the rotation starter.

You'll have to wait for Randar's opinion on some of the guys in rookie league and low A ball,he is far more familiar with them than I am.

Rex Hudler
02-02-2004, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Daver
Pacheco is not a top of the rotation type pitcher,he does not posess overwhelming stuff in any category,what he does posess is the ability to be a ground ball pitcher that gets outs.

Neal Cotts has the potential to be a top of the rotation pitcher,if he can get his mechanics straightened out to a point that they are consistent,I'll give you that is a big if,but I also keep in mind the fact that Randy Johnson did not become an overwhelming pitcher until he was in his late twenties.

Kris Honel has everything it takes to be an ace of the staff,he throws strikes,is consistent in the strike zone,has the ability to change speeds on his fastball that is set up with his changeup,and his knuckle curve breaks a foot and a half,in the zone.Ryan Wing,though still considered a bit of a project,also has the potential to be a top of the rotation starter.

You'll have to wait for Randar's opinion on some of the guys in rookie league and low A ball,he is far more familiar with them than I am.

How many times have you seen Pacheco pitch, out of curiosity?

Daver
02-02-2004, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Rex Hudler
How many times have you seen Pacheco pitch, out of curiosity?

I have three games from Birmingham on tape,and two games from when he was still in the Rockies system being used as a releiver.

Dadawg_77
02-02-2004, 09:02 PM
One of the things that hurts the Sox is some of their bigger pitching prospects have been High School signings. That increase the time from draft to major and they are less polished with breaking pitching then college pitchers.

Daver
02-02-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
One of the things that hurts the Sox is some of their bigger pitching prospects have been High School signings. That increase the time from draft to major and they are less polished with breaking pitching then college pitchers.


To a certain point this is true,but you also have to consider the other side of the argument,by drafting HS pitchers the team has control over how they are used,and how they are conditioned.There are a lot of college pitchers that get pitched a ton of innings without the benefit of decent workout regimens in college because the coach wants to win,period.

Drafting HS pitchers allows a more thourogh development program,if handled correctly from day one,and it is something that needs to be a true commitment,time will tell if Kirk Champion is able to pull it off.

Rex Hudler
02-02-2004, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Daver
I have three games from Birmingham on tape,and two games from when he was still in the Rockies system being used as a releiver.

Where are you getting Birmingham games on tape? Are they home games or road games? And was Pacheco the starter in all three games? What kind of stuff did you see?

GW83
02-03-2004, 05:04 AM
Originally posted by Daver
To a certain point this is true,but you also have to consider the other side of the argument,by drafting HS pitchers the team has control over how they are used,and how they are conditioned.There are a lot of college pitchers that get pitched a ton of innings without the benefit of decent workout regimens in college because the coach wants to win,period.

Drafting HS pitchers allows a more thourogh development program,if handled correctly from day one,and it is something that needs to be a true commitment,time will tell if Kirk Champion is able to pull it off.

But also drafting HS pitchers you also get a very immature young kid who might blow his talent away. I know this was a movie but Nuke in Bull Durham was a perfect example. Immature kid with a great arm and a 5 cent head.

gosox41
02-03-2004, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
I totally agree. But that just further goes to show how nuts it is for an organization to basically refuse to sign veteran, proven MLB pitchers. The Sox count on developing their own pitchers, but developing your own pitchers is a huge crap shoot. Doesn't seem like the best strategy in the world.

All of which goes again to illustrate how truly disasterous the decision to sign Navarro instead of Clemens was. Obviously, Clemens was a hell of a lot better than Navarro and that alone could have made a huge difference for the team in the late '90s. But in addition, had the Navarro signing not back-fired so horribly, perhaps the organization wouldn't be so damn gun shy about free agent pitchers in general.

There was no doubt at the time that Navarro was better then Clemens. And the Sox screwed up by picking the wrong guy, But they had some logic. Clemens was around 33 or so at the time and coming of two seasons in which he did not put up Clemens like numbers. The reason for this was due to injury issues.

Now imagine if the Sox had signed Clemens and his arm issues neve went away. The Sox would be blamed for taking a shot on yet another old washed up veteran. Navarro was a complete bust and I was wrong about him. But in '96 he had a solid year for the Cubs and for the $2 mill less per year plus the fact that he was healthy (at least physically) at the time made him a safer bet. It did blow up. But I was a poster in some other Sox newsgroups and no one called the signing a flop at the time it happened. In fact people we're excited that we stole the Cubs ace from them.

i agree Hold2 Dibber. Hindsight is 20/20. Anyone can complain about a move after the fact, but MLB teams don't have that luxury.

Bob

gosox41
02-03-2004, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Hold:

I'm reminded of a column Jay Mariotti wrote once where he said if the Sox had signed Roger Clemens and Moises Alou instead of Albert Belle and Jamie Navarro, there never would have been a White Flag Trade, the franchise would have made the playoffs and they wouldn't have taken the PR hits that the did.

Lip

Did Marriotti write this column at the time these moves were made or did he wait until mid way through the '97 season (or later) to make these opinions? As I said earlier, hindsight is 20/20.

Which is why I try to make my opinions on Sox moves when they happen. I love to analyze a trade at the time to see if it makes sense at the time and then see how accurate or wrong I am (ie see my opinions on the Foulke/Koch trade or the PK signing days after these moves happened. I was against both before the 2003 season started.) No one (not even Beane) shoots 100% in this game. But I think it's fun to try to predict at the time a move is made by sizing up all the arguments (talent given up, other options, mortgaging the future) instead of just coming out 6 months later and say the obvious if a move doesn't work.

Bob

gosox41
02-03-2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
One of the things that hurts the Sox is some of their bigger pitching prospects have been High School signings. That increase the time from draft to major and they are less polished with breaking pitching then college pitchers.

No wonder Billy Beane won't bother drafting high school pitchers. Everyone thinks he was locky in getting those 3 aces at the same time. There was some skill involved. Harden is going to be a good one, was that luck. The other guy (I forget his name but the Sox passed over him in 2002) is putting up impressive numbers in the minors. Are those two guys lucky picks?

Bob

SEALgep
02-03-2004, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
No wonder Billy Beane won't bother drafting high school pitchers. Everyone thinks he was locky in getting those 3 aces at the same time. There was some skill involved. Harden is going to be a good one, was that luck. The other guy (I forget his name but the Sox passed over him in 2002) is putting up impressive numbers in the minors. Are those two guys lucky picks?

Bob

It's not so much luck, rather it's risk panning out. The Sox have had a lot of their guys receive injuries. Is that bad scouting or bad luck? Well you can't predict those kind of things on a large scale of people. Some people have higher risk, sure, but sometimes stuff happens, and that stuff has happened to us.

MisterB
02-03-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by gosox41
There was no doubt at the time that Navarro was better then Clemens

Navarro was signed before the '97 season.

1996 stats:

Navarro - 3.92 era, 236.2 ip, 244 h, 158 k, 72 bb
Clemens - 3.63 era, 242.2 ip, 216 h, 257 k, 106 bb

the only thing really 'un-Clemens like' about Clemens in '96 was a high walk total. The fact is the only time Jaime Navarro was ever a better pitcher than Clemens was when Clemens was physically unable to pitch (specifically the '95 season). 240+ innings should have been a clue that the injuries were behind him.

red faber
02-03-2004, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
The Sox haven't been far off from developing pitching talent when compared to other teams. Of course there is room to get better. One of the few plusses of KW is that he seems to be working the pitcher's slower through the farm system to get them their experience.

People talk about Fernandez and McDowell. If I remember correctly both were top 10 picks. It's a lot easier to discover pitchign talent if you consistently have high picks. There are always going to be pitchers who slide through or are late bloomers or that grow 6 more inches after being drafted and add 30 Lbs. of muscle. It is a crapshoot in the later rounds. Sure Bere worked out, but so did Buehrle and he's at least healthier.

Drafting and developing pitching takes a lot of luck. When you hear things like Houston drafed so-and--so in the 30th round and look how he turned out. All that means is that 30 teams thought so-and-so was at best the 900th best player available. Kind of like teaching, certain pitchers may go into a situation and just click with a pitching coach or find someone who has a similar style, but htat doesn't mean he was a sure thing to be drafted.

Bob


true luck helps.

but i think that it moreso helps that you have people who have a keen eye for talent and know how to develop that talent.

red faber
02-03-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
Yeah. I think Garland and Buehrle are solid building blocks and Loaiza was a real find. It'd be really nice if we'd held onto Kip Wells. Perhaps most dissapointing of all is Rauch's injury. Shoulder surgery can be incredibly tough to bounce back from (look at Baldwin, Sirotka, and Parque) and in my opinion Rauch had superstar written all over him in the very near future at the time of his injury. Good command, very good stuff, and an excellent feel for how to pitch. His numbers in '00 were just incredible. Unfortunately, outside of maybe Honel there don't look to be any franchise pitchers on the way. The best bet seems to be hoping Garland reaches his considerable upside in the near future while Loaiza and Buehrle remain strong. Hopefully we'll pick up some promising pitchers in the upcoming draft with our compensation picks.

well,i think buehrle is a solid building block,and i think that loaiza will be good this year also year.but i'm not sold on garland at all,i mean yeah you can say that he's only 24 years old,but the guy has been in the pro's for most of the last 4 seasons,and he hasn't really shown any drastic improvement.i hope i'm wrong,but i just don't think the guy is major league material.