PDA

View Full Version : The answer to our SP shortage.....


carusochop
02-07-2004, 06:11 PM
Kip Wells and Josh Fogg.

Rotation:

Buerhle
Loiza
Wells
Fogg
Schoenweis

I'm so glad we had that year of Todd Ritchie, He really put us over the top........

ChiWhiteSox1337
02-07-2004, 06:27 PM
You'd rather have Schoenweis over Garland?????

RKMeibalane
02-07-2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
You'd rather have Schoenweis over Garland?????

I agree. The rotation should look like this:

Buehrle
Loaiza
Garland
Wells
Fogg

carusochop
02-07-2004, 06:35 PM
my bad, I forgot about Garland, the point was the SP we need are in a Pirates uniform

Huisj
02-07-2004, 06:36 PM
fogg is not that good at all

carusochop
02-07-2004, 06:41 PM
Fogg is better than whoever our 5th starter is. Last rumor i heard was Navarroo was coming back to compete for it......

mac9001
02-07-2004, 06:42 PM
Sounds more like a complaint than an answer. It's easy to build a team when you can "undo" every bad move ever made.

soxtalker
02-07-2004, 07:24 PM
I was unhappy about the trade at the time it was made (yes, even before Ritchie bombed), and I can't say that my attitude about it has changed much for the better. But we can't undo the deal. It probably was a good learning experience for KW in several respects, though. We do learn more from mistakes than successes.

CHISOXFAN13
02-07-2004, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by carusochop
Kip Wells and Josh Fogg.

Rotation:

Buerhle
Loiza
Wells
Fogg
Schoenweis

I'm so glad we had that year of Todd Ritchie, He really put us over the top........

This is the way I tend to look at things. If we still had Fogg and Wells would we have made the deal for Colon; how bout signing Esty?

One maybe, but there is no way both of those would have gone down.

SEALgep
02-07-2004, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
This is the way I tend to look at things. If we still had Fogg and Wells would we have made the deal for Colon; how bout signing Esty?

One maybe, but there is no way both of those would have gone down.

Good point.

gosox41
02-07-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
This is the way I tend to look at things. If we still had Fogg and Wells would we have made the deal for Colon; how bout signing Esty?

One maybe, but there is no way both of those would have gone down.

With or without Colon, the Sox would have wound up in the same place last season...home in October.

Bob

Brian26
02-07-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
With or without Colon, the Sox would have wound up in the same place last season...home in October.

Bob

Would we have been in the hunt until Sept 14th though? Colon gave us solid innings and made it a more memorable summer.

gosox41
02-07-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Would we have been in the hunt until Sept 14th though? Colon gave us solid innings and made it a more memorable summer.

It definitely did make for an interesting year. Of course keep in mind that Kip Wells had a solid year statistically last year and probably wouldn't have been much of a drop off from Colon (though right now I'm to lazy to look at Colon's number.)

I've said this 1000 times, what killed the Sox was that Foulke trade. With him here, the Sox wouldn't have been in a tight pennant race on Sept. 14, they'd be in the process of wrapping up the division.

Bob

The Critic
02-07-2004, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by gosox41
With or without Colon, the Sox would have wound up in the same place last season...home in October.

Bob

The same can be said of Wells and Fogg.
The Ritchie trade was a catastrophe, but not because Wells and Fogg are SO good, but more because Ritchie was so God-awful.

beckett21
02-07-2004, 10:39 PM
Hindsight is always 20/20. How about developing some of the guys we have now...Rauch...Cotts...Stewart...Honel...etc.

Isn't it starting to become too much of a coincidence how guys thrive once they LEAVE our system? Wells and Fogg are decent pitchers, but they are not world-beaters. The points about Colon and Loaiza were also well made. This topic has been beaten to death in other threads but this organization has had trouble developing pitchers of late.

Daver
02-07-2004, 10:47 PM
Wells is not going to give you the 246 innings that Colon pitched last year,neither is Fogg.Facing AL hitting I would not be surprised if they could not pitch 246 innings combined.


Anyone want to mention fond memories of Matt Guerrier now?

voodoochile
02-07-2004, 11:40 PM
After the way Manuel managed to screw up Garland so wonderfully and mess with other players heads (not playing Crede in Sept 2002, forcing harris to bunt every time) would anyone really believe that Fogg and Wells would be as good as they are if they had spent the last two seaons on the south side?

gosox41
02-08-2004, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
After the way Manuel managed to screw up Garland so wonderfully and mess with other players heads (not playing Crede in Sept 2002, forcing harris to bunt every time) would anyone really believe that Fogg and Wells would be as good as they are if they had spent the last two seaons on the south side?

I think it was more Nardi that ruined Wells. He was awful. His whole theory behind pitcing was backwards.

Bob

gosox41
02-08-2004, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Daver
Wells is not going to give you the 246 innings that Colon pitched last year,neither is Fogg.Facing AL hitting I would not be surprised if they could not pitch 246 innings combined.


I would be surprised.

For what it's worth, I thought the Ritchie trade was awful from Day 1. And you know how I get when I really hate a trade that is so obviously one sided (see any of my postings on Foulke)

:D:

Bob

wsgdf
02-08-2004, 01:31 PM
Short list of pitchers I'd rather have than Josh Fogg:

Schoeneweis
Wright
Rauch
Cotts
Garland

Josh Fogg is horrible - please can we get over losing him? I mean come on - his ERA was OVER 5 last year ---- in the NL!!!!!

Boy - wouldn't it be great to have Sean Lowe back in our bullpen??

What??

He's flipping burgers??

Uggghh.

kittle42
02-08-2004, 07:53 PM
Am I the only person happy that Kip Wells is not in a Sox uniform? He was a constant disappoinment here and good for him that he kinda got it on track elsewhere, but I was ecstatic when he was shown the door.

SSN721
02-09-2004, 07:14 AM
I never understood the love affair with Fogg and Wells. I think it was a horrible trade at the time and still don't quite understand it. But I dont think anyone was heartbroken over them leaving. They were dissapointing here, improved somewhat in a different enviorment but I dont think either of them are any better than a 4th starter. I suppose I wouldn't mind Wells as a 5th starter but have no desire to get Fogg back.

gosox41
02-09-2004, 07:22 AM
Originally posted by SSN721
I never understood the love affair with Fogg and Wells. I think it was a horrible trade at the time and still don't quite understand it. But I dont think anyone was heartbroken over them leaving. They were dissapointing here, improved somewhat in a different enviorment but I dont think either of them are any better than a 4th starter. I suppose I wouldn't mind Wells as a 5th starter but have no desire to get Fogg back.

Wells would be a #3 and possible a #2 starter.

Bob

hold2dibber
02-09-2004, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by SSN721
I never understood the love affair with Fogg and Wells. I think it was a horrible trade at the time and still don't quite understand it. But I dont think anyone was heartbroken over them leaving. They were dissapointing here, improved somewhat in a different enviorment but I dont think either of them are any better than a 4th starter. I suppose I wouldn't mind Wells as a 5th starter but have no desire to get Fogg back.

You're vastly underrating Wells, IMHO. He was a top quality starter last year and he has a live arm. I'd take him over Garland now (I admit I didn't have that opinion at the time of the trade). He was significantly better than Buehrle last year, too.

Randar68
02-09-2004, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by carusochop
Fogg is better than whoever our 5th starter is. Last rumor i heard was Navarroo was coming back to compete for it......

Pass the pipe, bro. Fogg wouldn't beat Rauch, Diaz, Cotts or Pacheco for that spot.

Randar68
02-09-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
You're vastly underrating Wells, IMHO. He was a top quality starter last year and he has a live arm. I'd take him over Garland now (I admit I didn't have that opinion at the time of the trade). He was significantly better than Buehrle last year, too.

HUH?

Wells was better than Buehrle? Man, there must be a surplus of some good LSD around here lately. BTW, in case you forgot, Kip Wells pitches in the NL.

poorme
02-09-2004, 03:58 PM
Win Shares

Wells 16
Buehrle 13

Randar68
02-09-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by poorme
Win Shares

Wells 16
Buehrle 13

Wow, and there's the definitive answer, folks....



BLA!

MarkEdward
02-09-2004, 09:40 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Wow, and there's the definitive answer, folks....



BLA!

... Anyway, it'll be interesting to see who has the better career, in regards to Kip Wells and Mark Buehrle. This past year, Wells had the better ERA+, VORP, SNWAR, and K/9. Buehrle had the better BB/9, HR/9, and DIPS ERA. He also pitched 30 more innings, and he's two years younger. You can argue either way when deciding who had the better year.

If I was betting man, I think I'd say Wells will have the better career. He has a decent K rate, and his control problems seem to be under control. I'm really scared about Buehrle's (lack of) strikeouts. Not many modern-day pitchers throw for very long if they don't keep their K rate up. Even Jimmy Key, low K rate pitcher that he was, kept his rate at about 5.5 per nine innings. It looks like Buehrle will become a Kirk Rueter type, but if Woody is Mark's upside, I'd be kind of disappointed.

Anyone see a similarity between the current Mark Buehrle and Steve Avery, 1990-1993? During those years, Avery had low K and BB rates, similar to Mark. Incidentally, when his K rate improved after '93, he also began to get, well, bad.

doublem23
02-09-2004, 09:43 PM
We're yearning for Josh Fogg?

:chunks

hold2dibber
02-10-2004, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
HUH?

Wells was better than Buehrle? Man, there must be a surplus of some good LSD around here lately. BTW, in case you forgot, Kip Wells pitches in the NL.

Thanks so much for your friendly reminder, but I in fact did recall that Kip Wells pitches in the NL. Wells numbers were pretty much better across the board (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/mlb_sortable_player_stats.jsp?section2=2&statSet2=1&statType=2&sortByStat=GS&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=2003&baseballScope=mlb&isCompare=true&sitSplit=&venueID=&subScope=pos&teamPosCode=1&box1=XXXX150337pitX&checkBoxTotal=0&playerLocator=buehrle), although Buehrle pitched more innings. I don't contend to know how much of a difference one should expect based solely upon the fact that they pitched in different leagues, but I suspect that Wells' numbers are incrementally better than Buehrle's, even taking into account their different leagues. For example, Buehrle's ERA+ was 108, which, I believe, means that his ERA, taking his ballpark into consideration, was about 8% better than league average. Wells ERA+ was 129, or about 29% better than league average.

In any event, you might be able to put together an argument that Wells was as good as Buehrle last year, but it appears to me that Wells was better and to suggest that one must be under the influence to so suggest is ridiculous.

hold2dibber
02-10-2004, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Wow, and there's the definitive answer, folks....



BLA!

Okay, Randar, if you think Buehrle was better than Wells last year (and if you think, as you apparently do, that you'd have to be on LSD to think otherwise), make your case. Why was Buehrle so clearly superior to Wells last year?