PDA

View Full Version : A serviceable fifth starter


kittle42
05-17-2004, 09:36 PM
Does anyone else wish we had one.....???? Even a 5.00 ERA would be acceptable at this point.

MRKARNO
05-17-2004, 09:37 PM
Rauch

Nard
05-17-2004, 09:38 PM
Yep.

I hope to see Diaz sent back immediately following the game. Just not major league material.

samram
05-17-2004, 09:44 PM
I'm gonna go to the airport to welcome him back and say "Felix, have you ever heard of Aaron Myette?"

beckett21
05-17-2004, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Nard

I hope to see Diaz sent back immediately following the game. Just not major league material.

My how quickly attitudes change around here.

Two weeks ago Danny Wright was the antichrist and Felix Diaz was the saviour.

Too bad about Felix. In case anyone hasn't figured this out yet, the answer for this year is not going to come from within. Not a knock on Rauch or Cotts, it is just very hard to be an effective major league pitcher. ESPECIALLY with no experience. But there were too many people all too willing to hand over the keys to a rookie.

So who will be the next one to be built up only to be disgracefully torn down?

It's just not fair.

Nard
05-17-2004, 09:59 PM
Heh well just goes to show AAA stats are pretty much meaningless.

Diaz was bulletproof, just bulletproof. Now look at him.

balboner
05-17-2004, 10:03 PM
The inability of KW to produce a solid number 5 starter is the difference between the Sox and the AL central pennant over the last few years, I believe. Way too many games have been lost by Wright, Diaz, Porzio, Rauch, and Cotts. KW needs to make a signficant move to give the Sox a chance.

Frater Perdurabo
05-17-2004, 10:05 PM
How about going out and getting an ace starter? Then Garland becomes the 5th starter. Problem solved. :gulp:

beckett21
05-17-2004, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
Rauch

If he was the answer, then why didn't HE get the callup?

We can keep rolling out names until we have a veritable who's who of our minor league system.

How many guys we gonna run outta town??

None of them is the answer. It's becoming painfully obvious.

beckett21
05-17-2004, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo
How about going out and getting an ace starter? Then Garland becomes the 5th starter. Problem solved. :gulp:

Too obvious.

Jjav829
05-17-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
If he was the answer, then why didn't HE get the callup?

We can keep rolling out names until we have a veritable who's who of our minor league system.

How many guys we gonna run outta town??

None of them is the answer. It's becoming painfully obvious.

Agreed. It's not fair to the pitchers that we keep throwing out there and yanking early. It's not fair to the rest of the team and it's not fair to the fans.

SoxxoS
05-17-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
If he was the answer, then why didn't HE get the callup?


Because [Rauch] is in KW's doghouse. It's hard to get out of there.

Now, if you are a golden boy like Valentin, you get the world on a silver platter.

beckett21
05-17-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by SoxxoS
Because [Rauch] is in KW's doghouse. It's hard to get out of there.

Now, if you are a golden boy like Valentin, you get the world on a silver platter.

I'm not *in the know* so I have no way to argue with you.

I would only hope that if Rauch were indeed the most MLB-ready of our prospects that he would have been the one given the first call. IMO he should have been anyway, but Diaz had some nice numbers which blinded everyone. Including management apparently.

I'm not saying the Diaz callup was the right or wrong answer. Hindsight is always 20/20, and who knows it might have been lightning in a bottle. But it wasn't. How many more guys are we going to pluck out of the system hoping to strike gold? Rauch? Munoz? Nobody knows.

Cotts--possibly the best chance, but then remember last year.

Time to go out and get a legitimate MLB SP, if the Sox plan to be playing in October that is.

Lip Man 1
05-17-2004, 10:23 PM
Nard says: "AAA stats are pretty much meaningless."

I heard that somewhere before...hmmmm.

Beckett is right, it does no good to the kids nor does it do any good for the team to run guys out there who aren't prepared or good enough.

It costs the Sox dearly in 96, it cost them in 2003 when 5th starters had an ERA of over 6 and put together a sterling (not John) record of like 5-11.

The real question is why don't the Sox ever learn?

Lip

jeremyb1
05-17-2004, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Nard
Heh well just goes to show AAA stats are pretty much meaningless.

Diaz was bulletproof, just bulletproof. Now look at him.

Or that sample size figures in here. I mean come on, if a pitcher pitched one inning in his debut and gives up one run are you willing to state that at no point in his life will he be anything other than a 9 ERA pitcher? Because that's not at all far from what you're doing here. You're placing an insane amount of emphasis on half a dozen AAA starts and even more on ten major league innings.

Nard
05-17-2004, 10:37 PM
Okay, fair enough.

I'm just saying, what we've seen so far is him getting beaten around like a ragdoll.

We can't keep playing this game, where every time Wright or Diaz or Another pitches we just expect to take a loss.

Nick@Nite
05-17-2004, 10:42 PM
Charlie Hough

Lip Man 1
05-17-2004, 10:46 PM
Hough pitched better with the Sox then any of the guys we've been running out here the past two years. hell he's in his late 50's but throwing that knuckleball he could probably still do the job.

Lip

OurBitchinMinny
05-17-2004, 10:49 PM
Dont forget that rauch has already had a chance and he sucked. Im for either cotts or munoz from birmingham

beckett21
05-17-2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Nard
Okay, fair enough.

I'm just saying, what we've seen so far is him getting beaten around like a ragdoll.

We can't keep playing this game, where every time Wright or Diaz or Another pitches we just expect to take a loss.

That's the whole point.

As much as Wright sucked, at least he had some experience. Yes I was obviously a Wright apologist for awhile there and it's just a shame what has happened to him.

But it's real easy to jump on the flavor-'o-the-week bandwagon to change just for the sake of change itself.

I am not saying Wright was the answer by any means; he certainly was not. But to say that Diaz was after 6 starts or however many he had this season in AAA was not fair to him or to anyone else. Rauch had some experience and should have been next in line IMO. So either he has no future with us, or the powers that be deemed Diaz more ready to help this club. And after what happened to Diaz, if he is the one most ready to contribute....well obviously that was wrong.

The Sox need an established starter, preferably a top of the rotation guy . Don't know how they are going to get one, but that is what they need. If I were KW, I'd be talking with Seattle right now. Hopefully he is.

beckett21
05-17-2004, 10:53 PM
Originally posted by ChisoxfaninMinny
Dont forget that rauch has already had a chance and he sucked. Im for either cotts or munoz from birmingham

Yeah, Rauch had a shot a few years ago. No way could he possibly be a better pitcher now.

And Diaz is now forevermore*washed up* because of these two starts.

And let's throw Arnie Munoz out there, because Felix Diaz worked out so well....how could it be worse?

BTW there is so much sarcasm dripping from those last two statements that teal would not even do them justice.

Time for a reality check.

ChiSox7
05-17-2004, 10:53 PM
We need to worry about the hitting, or what 5th starter we have will not matter. We won't score enough for whoever is the 5th starter out there. Our offense sucks and is the only reason we are struggling this year.

CWSGuy406
05-17-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
I'm not *in the know* so I have no way to argue with you.

I would only hope that if Rauch were indeed the most MLB-ready of our prospects that he would have been the one given the first call. IMO he should have been anyway, but Diaz had some nice numbers which blinded everyone. Including management apparently.

I'm not saying the Diaz callup was the right or wrong answer. Hindsight is always 20/20, and who knows it might have been lightning in a bottle. But it wasn't. How many more guys are we going to pluck out of the system hoping to strike gold? Rauch? Munoz? Nobody knows.

Cotts--possibly the best chance, but then remember last year.

Time to go out and get a legitimate MLB SP, if the Sox plan to be playing in October that is.

Agreed - too many times over the past couple of years we've dealt with guys being just thrown into the fire very prematurely, I think we were all in some way a little blinded just by Diaz's numbers and the clubs building up of this guy (I dunno, maybe I'm not speaking for you guys when I say this).

It's time, Kenny. You want this division badly? Go get us a starter. Not from the farm. Go get us a proven starter, someone who at least can go five or six innings and give up four runs or less of baseball. It's time, Kenny...

OEO Magglio
05-17-2004, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by ChiSox7
We need to worry about the hitting, or what 5th starter we have will not matter. We won't score enough for whoever is the 5th starter out there. Our offense sucks and is the only reason we are struggling this year.
I completely agree. Do the sox need a 5th starter..... no doubt, but they need to shake up the offense, I'm tired of seeing this happen every single year, and I think a lot of the shaking up of the lineup can come with the addition by subtraction method.

Randar68
05-17-2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Nard says: "AAA stats are pretty much meaningless."

I heard that somewhere before...hmmmm.

Beckett is right, it does no good to the kids nor does it do any good for the team to run guys out there who aren't prepared or good enough.

It costs the Sox dearly in 96, it cost them in 2003 when 5th starters had an ERA of over 6 and put together a sterling (not John) record of like 5-11.

The real question is why don't the Sox ever learn?

Lip

Nothing you enjoy more than a kid failing so you can trot that line of crap out, is there, Lip?

how about that willie harris and Juan Uribe? What bums... *****.

Randar68
05-17-2004, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by ChisoxfaninMinny
Dont forget that rauch has already had a chance and he sucked. Im for either cotts or munoz from birmingham

you mean when Rauch dominated Minnesota 2 straight starts in September?

yeah, he sure failed there...

beckett21
05-17-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by OEO Magglio
I completely agree. Do the sox need a 5th starter..... no doubt, but they need to shake up the offense, I'm tired of seeing this happen every single year, and I think a lot of the shaking up of the lineup can come with the addition by subtraction method.

This is about the time of the season that glaring weaknesses in any club begin to rear their ugly head.

The offense has had problems no doubt. But there are some proven players there who are not playing to their potential. There have also been some surprises, like Uribe.

CF is a weakness and could stand an upgrade. Pitching wins championships, however; I firmly believe that axiom. If we had a legitimate ace on this staff we would be in business.

I could be totally wrong but I really believe the bats will come around. We cannot just automatically forfeit 20% of our games by trotting out a BP pitcher.

A. Cavatica
05-17-2004, 11:18 PM
Lots of pitchers have rough debuts. Lots of pitchers have problems on three days' rest. These two starts might not be the best basis on which to judge Diaz and declare him worthless.

Fact is, he earned his chance. A team with well-founded playoff expectations would have brought him up and had him pitch out of the pen, or brought him up as a temporary replacement for a pitcher on the 15-day DL -- with no expectations.

Rauch, who is older and has a lot to prove, might've been a better choice in hindsight, but when someone goes 5-0 with eye-popping ratios in AAA it DOES mean something. I would give Diaz two more starts.

Win1ForMe
05-17-2004, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
That's the whole point.

As much as Wright sucked, at least he had some experience. Yes I was obviously a Wright apologist for awhile there and it's just a shame what has happened to him.

But it's real easy to jump on the flavor-'o-the-week bandwagon to change just for the sake of change itself.

I am not saying Wright was the answer by any means; he certainly was not. But to say that Diaz was after 6 starts or however many he had this season in AAA was not fair to him or to anyone else. Rauch had some experience and should have been next in line IMO. So either he has no future with us, or the powers that be deemed Diaz more ready to help this club. And after what happened to Diaz, if he is the one most ready to contribute....well obviously that was wrong.

The Sox need an established starter, preferably a top of the rotation guy . Don't know how they are going to get one, but that is what they need. If I were KW, I'd be talking with Seattle right now. Hopefully he is.

While I agree that it would be nice to have an ace, I'm not sure that getting a SP would answer our problems. The Sox have so many holes right now (from hitting to the bullpen) that's it's hard for me to say that starting pitching is our greatest need.

Yes, it sucks that our 5th starters spot is not producing any wins. But I think that it's magnified because we're also losing games in which our other starting pitchers have not received run support (see last week's outings by Garland, Shoenweis, and Loaiza ).

elrod
05-17-2004, 11:24 PM
Remember Matt Ginter? He just went head-to-head against Clemens and after giving up a run in the first gave up no more earned runs through 6. The Mets ended up winning (thanks to a Piazza HR in the 9th). Now I don't know if Ginter will amount to much with the Mets but if he does we can add him to the list of other starters that could have helped us - Kip, Fogg, Ginter.

kittle42
05-17-2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by elrod
Remember Matt Ginter? He just went head-to-head against Clemens and after giving up a run in the first gave up no more earned runs through 6. The Mets ended up winning (thanks to a Piazza HR in the 9th). Now I don't know if Ginter will amount to much with the Mets but if he does we can add him to the list of other starters that could have helped us - Kip, Fogg, Ginter.

Puuuuuuuhhhhhh-leeeze.

Hey, Seth Greisinger just had a great start, too. You want him?

CWSGuy406
05-17-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by elrod
Remember Matt Ginter? He just went head-to-head against Clemens and after giving up a run in the first gave up no more earned runs through 6. The Mets ended up winning (thanks to a Piazza HR in the 9th). Now I don't know if Ginter will amount to much with the Mets but if he does we can add him to the list of other starters that could have helped us - Kip, Fogg, Ginter.

He also gave up about eight hits and a couple of walks in about five innings or so. I'd assert a lot of luck to that... Fogg wouldn't have helped us either this year. Kipper is a different story, but don't bring Ginter as a "good starter".

pudge
05-18-2004, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Nothing you enjoy more than a kid failing so you can trot that line of crap out, is there, Lip?

how about that willie harris and Juan Uribe? What bums... *****.

Randar, I respect you, but this is the one area where you're always smoking the crack pipe. Lip may be annoying, but for once he's right.

I'm all for giving some kids a shot if your team is not in a position to win a division. Now don't get me wrong, I did't mind giving Diaz a couple chances, and I might even be for giving Rauch a couple chances this year if we do it quickly, but the bottom line is, this team needs a veteran 5th starter who can pick up at least a few wins. It's becoming laughable that we continue to blow chances season after season.

AnkleSox
05-18-2004, 03:39 AM
I'm new, no one knows me, but all i can say is that if we had a fifth starter that threw AT LEAST .500, we would most likely have 3 more wins and be tied in first with Minnesota right now. I don't know if we really need an ace; Loaiza, Buerhle, and even Schoeneweis have the potential to be proven aces by the end of the year. A .500 pitcher and some more offense may just be enough to give us the edge when it comes to this division. The past few years we've had terrible 5th starters and have ended up only a few games out of winning the division.

Even a fifth starter who can fall just below .500 and not have a horrid record like ours did last year may be able to win us enough games to win the division.

LASOXFAN
05-18-2004, 06:23 AM
Kip.

Bring him back, he's available.

gosox41
05-18-2004, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by kittle42
Does anyone else wish we had one.....???? Even a 5.00 ERA would be acceptable at this point.

Blame KW again. A hole that was here on the team he inherited in 2000 still exists today.

Makes me wish we had Joe Balnton in our farm system. Will he be an ace? Who knows. Is he a servicable 5th starter option? I think so.

But maybe one of these other "great" arms in our farm system will step it up. Obviously KW hates Rauch (probvably because he didn't draft him) and KW hasn't had one player taht he drafted reach the big leagues yet.

Of course it's only been 4 (or 5 depending on who you beleive ) drafts that KW has run.


Bob

Jjav829
05-18-2004, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by elrod
Remember Matt Ginter? He just went head-to-head against Clemens and after giving up a run in the first gave up no more earned runs through 6. The Mets ended up winning (thanks to a Piazza HR in the 9th). Now I don't know if Ginter will amount to much with the Mets but if he does we can add him to the list of other starters that could have helped us - Kip, Fogg, Ginter.

Fogg sucks. He's worse than Danny Wright. Why do people keep bringing his name up? At this rate Fogg will be out of the league within a year.

Frater Perdurabo
05-18-2004, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by AnkleSox
I'm new, no one knows me, but all i can say is that if we had a fifth starter that threw AT LEAST .500, we would most likely have 3 more wins and be tied in first with Minnesota right now. I don't know if we really need an ace; Loaiza, Buerhle, and even Schoeneweis have the potential to be proven aces by the end of the year. A .500 pitcher and some more offense may just be enough to give us the edge when it comes to this division. The past few years we've had terrible 5th starters and have ended up only a few games out of winning the division.

Even a fifth starter who can fall just below .500 and not have a horrid record like ours did last year may be able to win us enough games to win the division.

Welcome aboard! :gulp:

Clarkdog
05-18-2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by balboner
The inability of KW to produce a solid number 5 starter is the difference between the Sox and the AL central pennant over the last few years, I believe. Way too many games have been lost by Wright, Diaz, Porzio, Rauch, and Cotts. KW needs to make a signficant move to give the Sox a chance.

True statement. Does anyopne remember the last time the Sox netted a victory from the fifth starter? Yes, the blown saves and weak performances against the Tigers and on the west coast were key - but this has been a glaring hole for this team going on three seasons.

Lip Man 1
05-18-2004, 01:38 PM
According to Joe Cowley in the Daily Southtown White Sox 5th starters are 3-16 the last two years alone.

and the other question involved in this discussion on 'kids,' '5th starters' is this....how many chances do you give them without doing serious harm to the club? What the magic number folks? 5 strats, 8? Give me a number.

For what it's worth Hawk last night on the postgame show talked about this same issue stating that something had to be done, that this issue with the 5th starter simply can't continue.

I got the sense listening to him though they he was referring to recent history....perhaps he's forgotten that this has been an issue since the 1995 season began... just that in some years it didn't matter because the Sox were mediocre at best.

Lip

ChiSox7
05-18-2004, 01:40 PM
The problem is all about the offense, and not the fifth starter. At this rate, it won't matter WHO we bring in to take over the roll because we won't score any runs for them. This offense sucks, while our pitching has been awesome. With a decent offense, like Detroit or Cleveland, we would have close to 22 or 23 wins right now.

As it is we are 3 GB of Minnesota and falling fast.

rahulsekhar
05-18-2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
nor does it do any good for the team to run guys out there who aren't prepared or good enough.



So Lip - in your world, when would you EVER bring up minor league pitchers? Is your ideal farm organization focused exclusively on position players? Or maybe the Sox should forgo a development organization altogether and only sign veteran free agents?

All teams need to get some help from within, and 5th starter is almost always the primary spot where they do that. Blame the team for overrating or misreading prospects, blame management for misusing them (i.e. Cotts starting v. Yankees rather than Tigers), blame the playrs for tanking when it counts. But to blame management for taking the approach that 1-2 pitchers be young guys they're grooming from within is IMO a bit misplaced.

rahulsekhar
05-18-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by elrod
Remember Matt Ginter? He just went head-to-head against Clemens and after giving up a run in the first gave up no more earned runs through 6. The Mets ended up winning (thanks to a Piazza HR in the 9th). Now I don't know if Ginter will amount to much with the Mets but if he does we can add him to the list of other starters that could have helped us - Kip, Fogg, Ginter.

Please for the love of whatever you hold dear, remove Josh Fogg from that list once and for all. The guy's had a WHIP around 1.5 and an ERA around 5 in the NL over the past 2 years. In fact, outside of his first turn around the NL, he's been pretty darn bad.

And pardon me if I don't hold my breath on Matt Ginter becoming a "could've been solid 5th starter".

wolcott10
05-18-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Jjav829
Fogg sucks. He's worse than Danny Wright. Why do people keep bringing his name up? At this rate Fogg will be out of the league within a year.

Didn't Fogg get his tail kicked by the Cubs this year? I'm not quite sure.

fsphog
05-18-2004, 02:30 PM
'rauch sucked' - haha - he was thrown into the fire not yet a yeaer after having a complete shoulder reconstruction done - (repair rotator cuff and labral tears, a completely torn bicept tendon, capsul shrinkage and a few bone spurs and a had his acromium shaved down) pitched the second game of the year, and then didnt pitch in a game for 14 more days, at which point kw and manual would throw a reliever in to pick up the win if rauch was winning (not letting him go 5 innings). sure, he had some rocky starts, but he also wasnt on a set rotation like the 1-4 guys are. then, at the end of the year, after being a starter for the next four months, he came out of relief for one game, then didnt pitch in a game for 18 days, and had the two good starts against the twins. for sucking so badly, he finished up 2-1, but a high era of 6.5+.

also, rauch isnt in the doghouse. kw isnt going to give him a chance because at this present time rauch is pitching with a partial thickness tear in his rotator cuff and a minute tear in his labrum. kw just doesnt want to pay him to spend time on the dl if that should happen. however, he has had the tears since last year, threw extremely well through the 2nd half of july and all of august, posting around a 2.1 era, and didnt get a call-up for two reasons, - the sox dont want to pay him, and because loaiza was going for the 20+ wins.

and now rauch seems to have it together again - his last start against pawtucket he gave up a couple hits, struck out six, walked one and gave up two charlotte bombs in six innings. he was also consistantly hitting 91-93. but i agree, diaz posted better numbers in aaa, and probably deserved a chance - expecially since its early in the season. however, if the sox are going to keep squandering talent in aaa, then they should take one more chance on rauch or get rid of him and trade him to get what they want, because he obviously isnt going to get a chance here.

Lip Man 1
05-19-2004, 12:14 AM
Rahul says (asks?): "when would you EVER bring up minor league pitchers?"

Answer: When my team has no chance of either winning the division / wild card and getting into the post season or when my team has no mathmatical chance of posting 82 wins and a 'winning' season.

It's about winning...winning right now in the Sox case, since it's been 44 years since a World Series appearance. I've heard for years the promise of a brighter, golden future with our farm system, especially our pitchers. I heard it a lot after the White Flag Trade including direct quotes from Uncle Jerry.

Net result: 83-79 average record since 1998. Net result: stiffs named Ruffcorn, Bolton, Myette, Wright, West, Ward, Fordham, Eyre, Castillo, Clemons and Bertotti to name a few.

No thank you.

I can think of worse things to do then take chances on veteran pitchers. Put Kenny Roger's 12 (or was it 14 wins) for Minnesota last year on the Sox and we win the division going away. Instead we get Danny Wright 0-7 as a starter. (As a side note the Sox lost Rogers because they wouldn't give him the extra million that the Twins offered. Let's see... how much money would the Sox have made from hosting at least one playoff game again?????)

Rahul I dislike 'can't miss kid' pitchers for two reasons, because the Sox simply haven't had overall success going this direction and two because I'm getting to friggin old to keep waiting for 'tomorrow.'

Lip

batmanZoSo
05-19-2004, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul says (asks?): "when would you EVER bring up minor league pitchers?"

Answer: When my team has no chance of either winning the division / wild card and getting into the post season or when my team has no mathmatical chance of posting 82 wins and a 'winning' season.

It's about winning...winning right now in the Sox case, since it's been 44 years since a World Series appearance. I've heard for years the promise of a brighter, golden future with our farm system, especially our pitchers. I heard it a lot after the White Flag Trade including direct quotes from Uncle Jerry.

Net result: 83-79 average record since 1998. Net result: stiffs named Ruffcorn, Bolton, Myette, Wright, West, Ward, Fordham, Eyre, Castillo, Clemons and Bertotti to name a few.

No thank you.

I can think of worse things to do then take chances on veteran pitchers. Put Kenny Roger's 12 (or was it 14 wins) for Minnesota last year on the Sox and we win the division going away. Instead we get Danny Wright 0-7 as a starter. (As a side note the Sox lost Rogers because they wouldn't give him the extra million that the Twins offered. Let's see... how much money would the Sox have made from hosting at least one playoff game again?????)

Rahul I dislike 'can't miss kid' pitchers for two reasons, because the Sox simply haven't had overall success going this direction and two because I'm getting to friggin old to keep waiting for 'tomorrow.'

Lip

I agree in full.

We never have can't miss pitchers because we rarely draft in the top half, and never the top 5.

Lip Man 1
05-19-2004, 01:47 PM
Also for what it's worth an item in the Chicago papers today states that Ryan Wing another 'top' Sox prospect is going to have season ending shoulder surgery and that Kris Honel who had some arm difficulties can't explain his drop in velocity and is struggling right now.

There are no sure things so that when you get a chance to grab a pitcher who at least has some type of track record for having gotten major league hitters out you need to take it.

Granted that doesn't guarantee he won't get hurt but at least there is something substancial to base a decision on with numbers accumulated from the highest level in the game.

Lip

rahulsekhar
05-19-2004, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul says (asks?): "when would you EVER bring up minor league pitchers?"

Answer: When my team has no chance of either winning the division / wild card and getting into the post season or when my team has no mathmatical chance of posting 82 wins and a 'winning' season.

Well, then you'll need a lot greater financial resources than I believe the Sox (or most teams not named the Yanks, BoSox, Cubs) have. The bottom line is that if you have financial constraints, then you have to figure out where you can get "cheap contributions". For 75+% of the teams (SWAG), that's the 5th starter slot. Heck - even the Yankees & Red Sox are having trouble finding a 5th starter.

And for what it's worth, in the scenario you outline above, the only time you bring up any rookie pitchers is VERY late in the year or if you give up (ala white flag) earlier in the season. That basically negates the value of a development organization because any prospects you do develop will almost never see the bigs. Drafting prospects to trade them can work occasionally, but not 100% of the time. So I guess in your world there is really only a marginal place for a minor league system.

rahulsekhar
05-19-2004, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

There are no sure things so that when you get a chance to grab a pitcher who at least has some type of track record for having gotten major league hitters out you need to take it.

Granted that doesn't guarantee he won't get hurt but at least there is something substancial to base a decision on with numbers accumulated from the highest level in the game.

Lip

Out of curiosity, were you for or against the Todd Ritchie trade? He certainly had a much better track record of success against major league hitters than Wells did at the time.

Randar68
05-19-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Out of curiosity, were you for or against the Todd Ritchie trade? He certainly had a much better track record of success against major league hitters than Wells did at the time.

That's a great question considering Lip's obsession with over-the-hill vets like Kenny Rogers...

Voice of Reason
05-19-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul says (asks?): "when would you EVER bring up minor league pitchers?"

Answer: When my team has no chance of either winning the division / wild card and getting into the post season or when my team has no mathmatical chance of posting 82 wins and a 'winning' season.

It's about winning...winning right now in the Sox case, since it's been 44 years since a World Series appearance. I've heard for years the promise of a brighter, golden future with our farm system, especially our pitchers. I heard it a lot after the White Flag Trade including direct quotes from Uncle Jerry.



Do you think that is a hard and fast rule for all teams or just something in response to the Sox organization track record with young pitchers? If you take a look at the past there is absolutely no evidence that rookie pitchers are incapable of helping down the stretch. There are definitely recent examples of rookies who have excelled for their teams in playoff races. Last year Dontrelle Willis was a prime example. In Arizona Brandon Webb held the pitching staff together through injuries to Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling but eventually the D-Backs offense failed them. Tim Hudson and Barry Zito were both excellent as rookies in playoff races for Oakland in the last five years. Rich Harden wasn't exactly a star for Oakland last year but he was an above average back of the rotation pitcher.

Randar68
05-19-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Do you think that is a hard and fast rule for all teams or just something in response to the Sox organization track record with young pitchers? If you take a look at the past there is absolutely no evidence that rookie pitchers are incapable of helping down the stretch. There are definitely recent examples of rookies who have excelled for their teams in playoff races. Last year Dontrelle Willis was a prime example. In Arizona Brandon Webb held the pitching staff together through injuries to Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling but eventually the D-Backs offense failed them. Tim Hudson and Barry Zito were both excellent as rookies in playoff races for Oakland in the last five years. Rich Harden wasn't exactly a star for Oakland last year but he was an above average back of the rotation pitcher.


Heck, Buehrle and Barcelo were KEYS to that Sox playoff run as all the veteran pitchers were going down with injuries coming down the stretch...

Voice of Reason
05-19-2004, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Heck, Buehrle and Barcelo were KEYS to that Sox playoff run as all the veteran pitchers were going down with injuries coming down the stretch...

Good call, I was just thinking of starters. Barcelo was lights out in 2000. Buehrle was a little less lights out but solid and I remember him getting some nasty pickoffs back then before the league was on to his ability to hold runners.

rahulsekhar
05-19-2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Heck, Buehrle and Barcelo were KEYS to that Sox playoff run as all the veteran pitchers were going down with injuries coming down the stretch...

What are you talking about? They were obviously just testaments to JR's cheapness!!!

Lip Man 1
05-19-2004, 10:30 PM
Folks like it or not you asked...I answered.

I was for the Ritchie trade but with some reservations... he had a high ERA in a league where the pitcher bats...even so, you take risks sometimes... you get burned. Considering the track record of our young pitchers to me anything is about worth the risk.

My opinion would be different if the Sox had an armload of young pitchers who made a difference with the club

and if the Sox had actually won something say just in the last 25 years.

But they haven't on both counts.

Ah yes, Barcelo...one of the 'keys' to the White Flag Trade in the words of Ron Schueler....yea he had a long career with the Sox! Guess it's just that rotten White Sox 'luck.'

Gang you are not going to change my mind on this sorry! :smile:

Lip

Lip Man 1
05-19-2004, 10:33 PM
Rahul mentions: "then you have to figure out where you can get "cheap contributions".

The Sox could have had Kenny Rogers last year for two million dollars instead we got Danny Wright.

Sounds pretty cheap to me...

Lip

rahulsekhar
05-19-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul mentions: "then you have to figure out where you can get "cheap contributions".

The Sox could have had Kenny Rogers last year for two million dollars instead we got Danny Wright.

Sounds pretty cheap to me...

Lip

You know what Lip: I agree with you that Kenny Rogers in hindsight would have been a good pickup. But he could just have easily ended up like say Kevin Appier did with the Royals. Given the Sox history of assessing veteran starters, I'm going to give them the benefit of being wrong on a guy here and there based on the successes of Loaiza, Schoenweis, Eldred, etc. They placed a value on Rogers based on what they thought the chance of him succeeding was, and they were wrong on that.

The only issue is that without the benefit of hindsight, it's not as obvious a move. The Sox probably could have had Rick Helling pretty cheaply too, but he doesn't seem to be working out for the Twins. However, he'd fall into your category of guys who've "proven they can get major leaguers out". Not eveyr move that is or isn't made is due exclusively to $$$.

rahulsekhar
05-19-2004, 11:19 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks like it or not you asked...I answered.

I was for the Ritchie trade but with some reservations... he had a high ERA in a league where the pitcher bats...even so, you take risks sometimes... you get burned. Considering the track record of our young pitchers to me anything is about worth the risk.

My opinion would be different if the Sox had an armload of young pitchers who made a difference with the club

and if the Sox had actually won something say just in the last 25 years.

But they haven't on both counts.

Ah yes, Barcelo...one of the 'keys' to the White Flag Trade in the words of Ron Schueler....yea he had a long career with the Sox! Guess it's just that rotten White Sox 'luck.'

Gang you are not going to change my mind on this sorry! :smile:

Lip

So right now would you rather have Kip Wells or Todd Ritchie? Therein lies the problem with your approach. If the Sox had kept Wells, we miht very well have had a solid #2 starter, you know - the type of guy that most here are hoping we can find somewhere in trade. That's where short term thinking like yours can end up biting you for a long time and prolonging the drought in terms of WS appearances.

Lip Man 1
05-20-2004, 02:02 PM
Rahul:

Kip Wells had two and a half years to 'prove' himself with the Sox. I remember Dave Campbell on Baseball Tonight picking him as Rookie Of The Year. Needless to say that didn't work out. i remember reading that some Sox players hated to play behind Kip because he took forever and that the Sox were always working with him to speed things up.

In hindsight I'd rather have Wells now then Ritchie but in my opinion Kip Wells will never be a #2 starter. He's another Jon Garland. Great stuff, tremendous ability, mediocre results.

Like you say there are no guarantees about any pitchers, Rogers, Suppan, Helling (who did very well with Florida last year) but the issue with me is this constant 'let's wait awhile and see what happens...' (Haven't we waited long enough??? I mean 44 years???)

I'm willing (unlike Sox ownership) to take any risks because the results on the field since 1959 haven't gotten the job done has it?

Lip

rahulsekhar
05-20-2004, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul:

Kip Wells had two and a half years to 'prove' himself with the Sox. I remember Dave Campbell on Baseball Tonight picking him as Rookie Of The Year. Needless to say that didn't work out. i remember reading that some Sox players hated to play behind Kip because he took forever and that the Sox were always working with him to speed things up.

In hindsight I'd rather have Wells now then Ritchie but in my opinion Kip Wells will never be a #2 starter. He's another Jon Garland. Great stuff, tremendous ability, mediocre results.

Like you say there are no guarantees about any pitchers, Rogers, Suppan, Helling (who did very well with Florida last year) but the issue with me is this constant 'let's wait awhile and see what happens...' (Haven't we waited long enough??? I mean 44 years???)

I'm willing (unlike Sox ownership) to take any risks because the results on the field since 1959 haven't gotten the job done has it?

Lip

My point is that there's risk inherent in depending on almost any player, veteran or rookie. Unless you go for guys who are still relatively in their prime, you're either taking on risk that 1)the guy's over the hill or declining in ability (with veterans ala Suppan, Helling, Rogers), or 2)the guy will never reach the ability that you believe he has (with rookies ala Wells, Diaz, etc.).

Unless you have the financial resources of a Yankees/Red Sox type of org, you simply cannot fill all your "holes" with proven guys still in their prime. For every Felix Diaz who gets rocked, there's a Rick Helling who apparently doesn't have it anymore (or for a closer to home example: James Baldwin).

In hindsight, it's easy to say Rogers would have been a good signing, but GMs don't have the luxury of operating with hindsight. In fact, using the same hindsight that says Rogers would have been a good move, keeping Kip Wells would have been a better one, and probably at a similar cost (I don't know what Wells is making, but I'm guessing it's not too far off from what Rogers cost the Twins last year). It's not as simple a choice as you make it out to be.

Lip Man 1
05-20-2004, 11:48 PM
Rahul:

Quiet a discussion going on here. I better be careful or West will claim the information is meaningless and redundent but to answer your points.

My mentioning Rogers was based on the fact that I pushed for the Sox to get him very hard last year and because he's a perfect example of what you mentioned earlied about not having complete freedom on payroll.

To lose Rogers who pitched well the year before with Texas (another double figure season in wins) for one million bucks (which is peanuts today) and to a divisional rival was insane.

It's not like Rogers went 5-12 in 2002. He can still produce. If you are going to gamble on young players (or pitchers) at least choose your spots wisely for them. The Sox could have put together a very solid 1-5 last year for relatively little money.

If the Sox are so hard up financially that one million bucks breaks the bank then they are in deeper trouble then anybody thought.

I remember Hangar was also angry over the Rogers dealing and he also said he was going to bite the Sox in the ass...and he did.

Please don't misunderstand I'm not talking 150 million dollar payroll here. But 65 million (or whatever the exact figure is) simply leaves to many holes that can't reasonably all be expected to be filled by inexpensive kids.

Sooner or later you pay the piper, for the Sox it caught up with them last September and I don't think it had to. They had a great chance but simply didn't fill the biggest area of need which is my mind is always pitching.

Lip

joecrede
05-21-2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul:

Quiet a discussion going on here. I better be careful or West will claim the information is meaningless and redundent but to answer your points.

My mentioning Rogers was based on the fact that I pushed for the Sox to get him very hard last year and because he's a perfect example of what you mentioned earlied about not having complete freedom on payroll.

To lose Rogers who pitched well the year before with Texas (another double figure season in wins) for one million bucks (which is peanuts today) and to a divisional rival was insane.

It's not like Rogers went 5-12 in 2002. He can still produce. If you are going to gamble on young players (or pitchers) at least choose your spots wisely for them. The Sox could have put together a very solid 1-5 last year for relatively little money.

If the Sox are so hard up financially that one million bucks breaks the bank then they are in deeper trouble then anybody thought.

I remember Hangar was also angry over the Rogers dealing and he also said he was going to bite the Sox in the ass...and he did.

Please don't misunderstand I'm not talking 150 million dollar payroll here. But 65 million (or whatever the exact figure is) simply leaves to many holes that can't reasonably all be expected to be filled by inexpensive kids.

Sooner or later you pay the piper, for the Sox it caught up with them last September and I don't think it had to. They had a great chance but simply didn't fill the biggest area of need which is my mind is always pitching.

Lip

I think the decision not to sign Rogers was based on talent evaluation and not money.

doublem23
05-21-2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
I think the decision not to sign Rogers was based on talent evaluation and not money.

Agreed, and I think it's really easy to just throw around money and offer your hindsight when your job isn't the one that's on the line with how the team performs.

rahulsekhar
05-21-2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

My mentioning Rogers was based on the fact that I pushed for the Sox to get him very hard last year and because he's a perfect example of what you mentioned earlied about not having complete freedom on payroll.

To lose Rogers who pitched well the year before with Texas (another double figure season in wins) for one million bucks (which is peanuts today) and to a divisional rival was insane.

It's not like Rogers went 5-12 in 2002. He can still produce. If you are going to gamble on young players (or pitchers) at least choose your spots wisely for them. The Sox could have put together a very solid 1-5 last year for relatively little money.

If the Sox are so hard up financially that one million bucks breaks the bank then they are in deeper trouble then anybody thought.

I remember Hangar was also angry over the Rogers dealing and he also said he was going to bite the Sox in the ass...and he did.

Please don't misunderstand I'm not talking 150 million dollar payroll here. But 65 million (or whatever the exact figure is) simply leaves to many holes that can't reasonably all be expected to be filled by inexpensive kids.

Sooner or later you pay the piper, for the Sox it caught up with them last September and I don't think it had to. They had a great chance but simply didn't fill the biggest area of need which is my mind is always pitching.

Lip

I guess the question at the time was this: What role does Rogers fill? Remember, at the time we had Loaiza coming in as our "potential over the hill veteran 5th starter". So the decision was - do we want ANOTHER one of these guys or do we want a guy who's been inconsistent, but shown flashes of being a solid ML pitcher in Dan Wright? (Remember that despite having a 5 ERA, he was coming off of a 14 win season with 18 quality starts out of 33.) (EDIT: For the record: Rogers had 20 of 33 quality starts in 2002 & went 13-8 with a 3.85 ERA.)

IIRC, when the Twins finally upped their offer to Rogers (no one else thought he was worth that $$ either) it was because they moved into a bit of crisis mode with Milton slow to recover from surgery and Mays going down. They had a gaping hole for a starter and he fit the bill. For the Sox he would have been another mid to low probability insurance policy.

IMO the decision wasn't because they didn't want to pay him decent starters money, it's because they didn't see him as a likely starter for them and thought they could find better ways to spend $2m than on an insurance policy.

The point being that money is not the ONLY factor in these decisions, and in thie case, I doubt it was a desire to save $1m that led to them not signing KR.

Lip Man 1
05-21-2004, 11:45 AM
Rahul:

With respect you make a very convincing arguement except for an important point.

Negotiations with Rogers began after Wright was disabled in the spring. The Sox knew Wright was a question mark for the season, that's exactly why Williams called Rogers agent and offered a million. The Sox actually were the first team to contact him, Minnesota then got involved after Milton was slow to come back from his surgery.

The Sox felt he wasn't worth an extra million even though they knew Danny might or might not be healthy. That decision ultimately cost them because something was either wrong with Wright or he wasn't that good of a pitcher to begin with if he was healthy (as Dr. Andrews said) yet he couldn't win any games.

Greg Cough of the Sun-Times had the same misconception until I sent him the information about Rogers and the timing with Danny's injury.

Lip

rahulsekhar
05-21-2004, 01:37 PM
I didn't realize the timing, that does make the Rogers signing more valuable.

However, in the eyes of most of baseball (since no one else contacted him), Kenny Rogers was not a very good risk to take. Obviously in hindsight, there are probably a ton of teams that would have liked to have had him, and most probably would have paid even more than $2m. But at the time, he was considered a poor risk. The Sox believed that they needed someone for about a month and that a month of a starter wasn't a good use of $2m in resources, especially given the inherent risk in KR.

It does come down to financials, but I don't think the decision was that a veteran starter wasn't worth $2m, it was that Kenny Rogers wasn't likely enough to pan out to be worth $2m, that even if he did pan out it wouldn't be worth $2m, and that those resources were better being avaialble to be used elsewhere. Especially since despite Danny being disabled in the spring, he was deemed healthy by the appropriate experts and came back about a month into the season.

I'm not saying that Kenny Rogers would have been a bad signing (obviously not), I just don't think that it was a desire to save $1m that prevented the Sox from signing him.

jabrch
05-21-2004, 01:41 PM
Actually, I wish we had a #1 starter - a top of the rotation ACE. If we had that, Loaiza and Buehrle would make great #2/#3. Garland and Schoe make a solid #4/#5. I don't want a 5th starter - I want a #1 (RJ) or at least a #2 (Garcia).

rahulsekhar
05-21-2004, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Actually, I wish we had a #1 starter - a top of the rotation ACE. If we had that, Loaiza and Buehrle would make great #2/#3. Garland and Schoe make a solid #4/#5. I don't want a 5th starter - I want a #1 (RJ) or at least a #2 (Garcia).

I'd agree, but the problem is that there aren't that many #1s, and especially not many available. The cost to get one is pretty prohibitive in both prospects and the $$$ they'd take up on the payroll (since the guys available are mostly near or at the top of the salary ladder).

Still, you could make the argument that if you can deal Konerko, make a deal for RJ and get some cash in the deal to cover this year, then hopefuly you see enough of an attendance bump to increase payroll the amount needed next year to keep Maggs at his current salary and RJ (by my calculation: Koch+Val+Koney = 19mil and RJ = 16, so you have ti bump salary by the amount needed for increases in the rest of the team and whoever you can sign for a closer or other bullpen arm).

pudge
05-21-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
That's a great question considering Lip's obsession with over-the-hill vets like Kenny Rogers...

Nobody is obsessed with Kenny Rogers. We just wanted someone last year who could hold the 5th spot, and as it turns out, having a guy like Rogers in that spot might just have been enough to help us win the division. Instead we got the Stewart/Porzio/Wright disaster and stayed home in October.

Hey, I was against the Ritchie move wholeheartedly. And I do think Rauch should be given another chance. But I also think there's a right and a wrong time to grow your rookie pitchers. I personally wanted to go for it all in 2003. I don't think we have nearly the same opportunity in 2004, so I'm all for bringing up Rauch.

rahulsekhar
05-21-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Nobody is obsessed with Kenny Rogers. We just wanted someone last year who could hold the 5th spot, and as it turns out, having a guy like Rogers in that spot might just have been enough to help us win the division. Instead we got the Stewart/Porzio/Wright disaster and stayed home in October.



Just remember, that going into last year Wright was not the question mark that he is now. He was coming off of a pretty solid year (18/33 quality starts, 14 wins), and despite the arm injury was supposedly (per Dr Andrews, etc) going to be OK by a month into the season. We were looking for a temporary replacement for a guy who realistically looked like a much better pitcher than Rogers.

pudge
05-21-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by rahulsekhar
Just remember, that going into last year Wright was not the question mark that he is now. He was coming off of a pretty solid year (18/33 quality starts, 14 wins), and despite the arm injury was supposedly (per Dr Andrews, etc) going to be OK by a month into the season. We were looking for a temporary replacement for a guy who realistically looked like a much better pitcher than Rogers.

The flaw with that thinking is that nobody was sure Loaiza would even survive the year in the rotation. The other flaw is that you're trying to win it all with question marks like Garland and Wright.

I hear what you're saying, and I still believe an extra arm would have helped. Well, in hindsight, I KNOW it would have helped.

joecrede
05-21-2004, 02:14 PM
Yes another pitcher would have helped, but the division was lost by the offense. Particularly in the 1st half. They finished 4th in the A.L. in ERA last year.

A. Cavatica
05-21-2004, 11:16 PM
If we'd gotten Rogers, Loaiza would never have gotten his shot.

Lip Man 1
05-21-2004, 11:39 PM
No, Rogers would have taken the place of Wright... not Loazia.

Esteban had already pitched lights out in the spring for a few weeks when Ken Williams began courting Rogers after Wright hurt his elbow. Loazia was already locked into the rotation. Rogers would have bolstered up the gaping hole at the end of the rotation.

Lip

gosox41
05-22-2004, 12:48 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Rahul:

Quiet a discussion going on here. I better be careful or West will claim the information is meaningless and redundent but to answer your points.

My mentioning Rogers was based on the fact that I pushed for the Sox to get him very hard last year and because he's a perfect example of what you mentioned earlied about not having complete freedom on payroll.

To lose Rogers who pitched well the year before with Texas (another double figure season in wins) for one million bucks (which is peanuts today) and to a divisional rival was insane.

It's not like Rogers went 5-12 in 2002. He can still produce. If you are going to gamble on young players (or pitchers) at least choose your spots wisely for them. The Sox could have put together a very solid 1-5 last year for relatively little money.

If the Sox are so hard up financially that one million bucks breaks the bank then they are in deeper trouble then anybody thought.

I remember Hangar was also angry over the Rogers dealing and he also said he was going to bite the Sox in the ass...and he did.

Please don't misunderstand I'm not talking 150 million dollar payroll here. But 65 million (or whatever the exact figure is) simply leaves to many holes that can't reasonably all be expected to be filled by inexpensive kids.

Sooner or later you pay the piper, for the Sox it caught up with them last September and I don't think it had to. They had a great chance but simply didn't fill the biggest area of need which is my mind is always pitching.

Lip

FWIW, I think the Sox need a fifth starter this year and needed one last year. That being said, I don't fault the Sox for passing on Rogers. The Sox figured, incorrectly, that a rookie pitcher could put up comparable numbers as Rogers (or slightly worse).

They were mistaken. But they actually valued their assets correctly by not agreeing to pay 7 times as much for a lefty who's been shake the last couple of years versus going with a rookie. I'll be mroe then happy to blame KW for bot developing a fifth starter in the 4 years he's been here, but I hardly fault him for finding another band aid solution to a long term problem, especially when that band aid is old, about to fall off, and expensive.


Bob

Lip Man 1
05-22-2004, 01:52 PM
Bob:

Two million dollars is not expensive and factoring in the fact that Wright had gotten hurt, the need was obvious. Losing him to a divisional rival (for whom he pitched very well) simply added salt in the wound.

Lip

gosox41
05-22-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Bob:

Two million dollars is not expensive and factoring in the fact that Wright had gotten hurt, the need was obvious. Losing him to a divisional rival (for whom he pitched very well) simply added salt in the wound.

Lip

Lip,

Running a team needs to be approached like it was in 'Moneyball'. And I'm not talking about OBP or firing scouts. It's about running the team like an efficient business, sonmething that hasn't been done. It's weight risk/reward analysis. The budget is what it is, and that's a different argument for a different day.

But whe Beane built the A's he basically was given a budget. Based on this budget he needs to value assets in that framework.

Just like IBM or Bank One or any other business, the Sox need to effectively value their assets to put the best team out there. That includes shedding underperforming assets and not overpaying for what you have. KW has been lousy at this as a whole. But the risk of signing an over the hill left hander with some injury problems on the downside of his career vs. paying a rookie with good minor league numbers 1/7 of that is great. It probably would have helped last year, but then again the Sox could have won the division if they had just made one less big trade.

Now don't miss the point here about what's a couple million for JR or whatever you're going to come up wtih. The terms of the budget sucks and we all know it.

But look at what KW has to do with that budget. Maybe signing Rogers for $2 mill prevents them from making another move. Kind of like of COlon was brought back Magglio would have been traded. Again, don't complain about cheapness, but look at it from KW's perspective of trying to get the most out of what he is given.

In this case, I'll defend KW for not signing Rogers. But of course I rip into him for overpaying for certain assets (Konerko) or trading a strong asset for a weak one then signing the weak one to a simiar contract as the strong one (Foulke for Koch).


Bob

SEALgep
05-22-2004, 02:04 PM
Right now our starters (the four) look very good right now. KW is no doubtedly looking to make a move for our fifth starter. If we can get a guy like Garcia, this discussion becomes a moot point IMO.

chisox56
05-22-2004, 02:50 PM
What about Josh Stewart being the 5th starter? Last year he wasn't that bad and if he wouldn't have been hit by that comebacker in baltimore he probably would have stayed the whole season with the sox and their fifth starter problem would have been solved.

lowesox
05-22-2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by jabrch
Actually, I wish we had a #1 starter - a top of the rotation ACE. If we had that, Loaiza and Buehrle would make great #2/#3. Garland and Schoe make a solid #4/#5. I don't want a 5th starter - I want a #1 (RJ) or at least a #2 (Garcia).

This thread has really opened my eyes to just how hard it is to acquire a good pitcher and jabrch, your post especially got me to thinking. Lets look at the three guys the sox are rumored to be looking at:

Randy Johnson, Mark Mulder and Freddy Garcia. Each of those three players could be ace-type pitchers. BUT each of them could become total busts.

Johnson is definitely performing well this season. But when KW brought over David Wells, he performed very well the season prior - and look when happened when he got to the Sox. The fact is - older pitchers are just too hard to predict. In Johnson's case, it would require us trading a number of top prospects - at any given point Johnson could go down to an injury. Making him, in my mind, a very risky acquisition.

Garcia on the other hand, just had a down year. And while he has a low ERA this year, he is 1-3. To me, Garcia seems like the kind of pitcher who has a great arm, but only above-average results. And I read somewhere that he had problems with substance abuse - which is always a big red flag. He could be an incredible find or he could be a total bust. In his case, it will depend entirely on what we give up.

Mulder is in the perfect stage of his career life-cycle, but that makes him very hard to acquire. In fact, I question if Billy Bean would pull a trade like that. And there's one other thing to consider with Mulder: he's had excellent results in his career but he's never been forced to be an ace. In fact, with Hudson and Zito, I'd argue that he's sort of like their number 3 guy. How would he handle being an ace on the WhiteSox?

Anyway, I guess my point here (my long-winded point) is that when you're gunning for a top-notch pitcher there's a high probabiltiy of the move back-firing. Because, let's face it, most teams aren't really willing to give up good pitchers. Which makes me nervous since Kenny Williams has been described as being very 'aggressive' lately. Right now, I'd rather look at a low-risk option and see how that pans out. We've got a pretty good team here, I'd hate to disrupt anything.

SEALgep
05-22-2004, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by chisox56
What about Josh Stewart being the 5th starter? Last year he wasn't that bad and if he wouldn't have been hit by that comebacker in baltimore he probably would have stayed the whole season with the sox and their fifth starter problem would have been solved. Although I like Stewart, if we are going to call up another minor leaguer, I would just assume give Grilli a shot.

beckett21
05-22-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
This thread has really opened my eyes to just how hard it is to acquire a good pitcher and jabrch, your post especially got me to thinking. Lets look at the three guys the sox are rumored to be looking at:

Randy Johnson, Mark Mulder and Freddy Garcia. Each of those three players could be ace-type pitchers. BUT each of them could become total busts.

Johnson is definitely performing well this season. But when KW brought over David Wells, he performed very well the season prior - and look when happened when he got to the Sox. The fact is - older pitchers are just too hard to predict. In Johnson's case, it would require us trading a number of top prospects - at any given point Johnson could go down to an injury. Making him, in my mind, a very risky acquisition.

Garcia on the other hand, just had a down year. And while he has a low ERA this year, he is 1-3. To me, Garcia seems like the kind of pitcher who has a great arm, but only above-average results. And I read somewhere that he had problems with substance abuse - which is always a big red flag. He could be an incredible find or he could be a total bust. In his case, it will depend entirely on what we give up.

Mulder is in the perfect stage of his career life-cycle, but that makes him very hard to acquire. In fact, I question if Billy Bean would pull a trade like that. And there's one other thing to consider with Mulder: he's had excellent results in his career but he's never been forced to be an ace. In fact, with Hudson and Zito, I'd argue that he's sort of like their number 3 guy. How would he handle being an ace on the WhiteSox?

Anyway, I guess my point here (my long-winded point) is that when you're gunning for a top-notch pitcher there's a high probabiltiy of the move back-firing. Because, let's face it, most teams aren't really willing to give up good pitchers. Which makes me nervous since Kenny Williams has been described as being very 'aggressive' lately. Right now, I'd rather look at a low-risk option and see how that pans out. We've got a pretty good team here, I'd hate to disrupt anything.

Garcia is known as one to enjoy the night-life. I don't know about substance abuse per se, unless you mean alcohol which I guess is a substance. Hey, he's a young, single, rich man. There are very few choirboys in MLB. He is also playing for a big payday this year. He was personally embarassed by his performance last season, and has something to prove this year. He's a big strong workhorse who can eat innings like Colon eats pizzas. To me, he's worth the risk.

Johnson is definitely not worth a risk. For many reasons.

Mark Mulder is not an option. No way they trade him. If we DID get him, he could handle being an ace no problem. He is one cool customer.

I do not know what a low-risk option would be. Any move has risk. More than likely a *low-risk* type of guy will not be enough to get us deep into the postseason, so I'll take a little risk for the greater reward.

lowesox
05-22-2004, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
I do not know what a low-risk option would be. Any move has risk. More than likely a *low-risk* type of guy will not be enough to get us deep into the postseason, so I'll take a little risk for the greater reward.

Generally, I agree. But, I don't think a low-risk guy couldn't make a difference. Take somebody like Jamie Moyer, for instance. I doubt he would cost us a lot to get and he's been good in the playoffs in the past.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not against bringing in a guy like Garcia. I just want to do it in a very cautious way. In the past, KW has shown a habit of just diving into trades. Usually, those are the ones that really backfire.

beckett21
05-22-2004, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
Generally, I agree. But, I don't think a low-risk guy couldn't make a difference. Take somebody like Jamie Moyer, for instance. I doubt he would cost us a lot to get and he's been good in the playoffs in the past.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not against bringing in a guy like Garcia. I just want to do it in a very cautious way. In the past, KW has shown a habit of just diving into trades. Usually, those are the ones that really backfire.

I do agree with you as well. Yes even a Jamie Moyer type would be of help.

The Sox have had Garcia on their radar for awhile now. They supposedly tried to get him in the offseason. Ozzie seems to know him pretty well, they are fellow countrymen (Venezuelan like Maggs, not that it really matters.).

I do not think that KW would be jumping blindly into this one. To be quite honest, I think it would be a brilliant move although there are others who seem to strongly disagree. If you look at his career stats before last season, they are well above average and he is approaching the peak of his career. I'm sure Dawg will be all over me for this, but he is the type of guy who has the POTENTIAL to win a Cy Young. Yes the dreaded P word. But I firmly believe his stuff is that good, if he can avoid the extraneous distractions. It takes pitchers a few years to truly find themselves, and he has already been pretty successful. I would only expect him to get better.

:KW

"Thanks. Have some more of my Kool-aid."

SEALgep
05-22-2004, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by beckett21
Garcia is known as one to enjoy the night-life. I don't know about substance abuse per se, unless you mean alcohol which I guess is a substance. Hey, he's a young, single, rich man. There are very few choirboys in MLB. He is also playing for a big payday this year. He was personally embarassed by his performance last season, and has something to prove this year. He's a big strong workhorse who can eat innings like Colon eats pizzas. To me, he's worth the risk.
As you know, I think he is worth the risk as well. However, I think the night life isn't really a strong factor for concern. First of all, we already have a few guys with that reputation. Ozzie doesn't seem to be against guys going out and getting lit up once an while. And most importantly, Guillen and him are friends. I would assume Guillen has no qualms or foreseeable issues of concern about keeping Garcia in check. That's the way I see it anyway.

lowesox
05-22-2004, 03:35 PM
Does anybody know who we're rumored to be using as trade bait for somebody like Garcia? I'd guess it would have to be Lee to balance out the books. But I think we'd need to get more for Lee in return since IIRC Garcia is in his contract year.

beckett21
05-22-2004, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
Does anybody know who we're rumored to be using as trade bait for somebody like Garcia? I'd guess it would have to be Lee to balance out the books. But I think we'd need to get more for Lee in return since IIRC Garcia is in his contract year.

Lee is one rumor, Valentin another. They need a power hitter, perhaps a Borchard type.

I'd guess they would probably want a pitching prospect in return as well.

In all honesty I don't know, but those are names I have seen bandied about before. There was an earlier rumor about us getting Randy Winn as well, but I fear for the rumor-monger police as I speak. :o:

jabrch
05-22-2004, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by lowesox
Anyway, I guess my point here (my long-winded point) is that when you're gunning for a top-notch pitcher there's a high probabiltiy of the move back-firing. Because, let's face it, most teams aren't really willing to give up good pitchers. Which makes me nervous since Kenny Williams has been described as being very 'aggressive' lately. Right now, I'd rather look at a low-risk option and see how that pans out. We've got a pretty good team here, I'd hate to disrupt anything.

I agree - with the reward of a top notch pitcher, who is available, there is risk. But at the same time, if we go for a low risk pitcher, we will likely be looking at acquiring a 3rd or 4th stater who we will be hoping would be just barely better than our current crappy-ass 5th starters.

We need a front of the rotation guy (a #1 or a #2). The ones available all have risk associated with them. But if we are going to not only win the division, but make waves in the playoffs, we need to have that. A rotation of one of Johnson/Mulder/Garcia with Loaiza, Buehrle, Garland and Schoenweis may be as good as almost any in the AL (except Boston and maybe NYY?). That is what we need to WIN a WS.

Lip Man 1
05-22-2004, 10:56 PM
The only problem is that I don't know of any bad teams who have 'aces,' that they'd be willing to trade and certainly the A's aren't going to be trading a Hudson, Zito, Mulder nor will the Red Sox be dealing Pedro.


You have a much better chance especially right now of getting a solid guy for the backend of the rotation. Considering the way the 5th starters have performed the past two years (now 3-17 according to Joe Cowley) anybody should be able to do better then that.

The Sox aren't looking for a guy who can reel off seven straight wins, just somebody who can win three or four and keep the club in the game to give them a chance for a win. Right now the Sox are getting behind so fast, and by so much, they have very little chance of coming back.

Lip

chisox56
05-23-2004, 04:06 AM
If the reds go on a giant losing streak and are out of the race before the deadline what about paul wilson? I don't know what he has done but he somehow learned to pitch well. Maybe it was the fight with farnsworth who should have been suspended more for being cocky and laughing about the fight after it last year.

PaleHoseGeorge
05-23-2004, 09:14 AM
Unless you're the NY Yankees, I'm not sure such an animal such as "a serviceable fifth starter" even exists.

Filling this need is relatively low on my priority list.

Lip Man 1
05-23-2004, 02:12 PM
George:

Interesting post... could you elaborate since you have said that you can never have enough pitching.

I can think of four guys who might (notice I said might) be available in the near future who are better then anything the Sox have thrown out in the back end of the rotation for the past two years.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
05-23-2004, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
George:

Interesting post... could you elaborate since you have said that you can never have enough pitching.

I can think of four guys who might (notice I said might) be available in the near future who are better then anything the Sox have thrown out in the back end of the rotation for the past two years.

My point is simple. #5 starters are skipped whenever possible, unless the manager is a complete idiot.

Complete idiot -----> :jerry

Another starting pitcher *better than* Scott Schoenweis will do a world of good because he will start every fourth or fifth game. He'll also be a key component to the team come September and October, too.

Who else remembers Tim Belcher who the Sox acquired as a #5 in the late-summer in 1993? He did next to nothing to help the Sox win the division, but played a key role as a *reliever* to help the Sox win a playoff game in Toronto. (When you're a Sox Fan, you don't have too many playoff game details to clog your memory. :smile: )

So if we can't get a starter *better than* Schoenweis, we would do better to go out and get a decent relief pitcher. He will get far more work than a #5, and give us many more chances to win games than running out there every 5 to 10 games to pitch batting practice better than Danny Wrong or Neal Cotts.

#5 pitchers just aren't that valuable. A good reliever would be a better pick up. Naturally any starter better than Schoenweis would be better still.

tstrike2000
05-24-2004, 08:58 AM
Gotta love Sox fans! No matter the opinion, we know our baseball! Anyway, I agree with a couple of posts that said that if we had a winning 5th starter, we would've won the division. That's partly true, because last year the Sox did their typical poor play in May. Plus Colon and Buehrle didn't win back to back starts until July. If any of the above things were better, it obviously would've been a tighter finish.

However, as of right now, the Sox have won all those 1 run games they couldn't win last year and haven't fallin' apart in May. Besides Uribe, the biggest surprise to me has been Schoeneweis. I was really worried in spring training we were going to need a 4th and 5th starters. However, the ability to win those 1 run games, Schoeneweis surprising pitching, and not completely falling into the May trap, have turned the Sox around from the last few years. However, I will go out on a limb here and say that if the Sox don't get another proven starter, we will be seeing Minnesota in the playoffs again. However, get that 5th starter (or better) who can keep us in the game, and Schoeneweis being able to stay fairly consistant, we will win the division.

depy48
05-24-2004, 11:58 AM
is Mike Porzio still around?

BigEdWalsh
05-24-2004, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by depy48
is Mike Porzio still around?

:JB Never mind Porzio! I'm still around. And I'm a free agent looking for work!

Herbal
05-24-2004, 07:33 PM
Lately, I've been thinking along the lines of George's last post. With the sporadic schedule that a 5th starter is on (could go a couple of weeks between starts), what about a versatile veteran that could spot start. I'm thinking along the lines of a Mulholland or Wakefield. Not those guys specifcially (I'm not even sure if Wakefield is still active). The 5th starter is not that valuable come the end of the season.

I'll leave it to the experts here to throw out some names, but I'd think you could get this type of guy for a minor leaguer, or a specialist like Wunsch. This would keep our offense in tact, until KW pulls the trigger on big hitter.

If the Sox do get a #1, I'd hate to see Garland pitch on a strange schedule. Ozzie has boosted his confidence, and messing with his schedule could send him backwards.