PDA

View Full Version : Was this the worst month in recent White Sox history?


na_na_na_na
07-30-2004, 02:51 PM
Maybe this is a little pre-mature but look at the events of this month so far:

1) Cubs Sweep Sox
2) All-Star Snub
3) Frank Gets Hurt
4) Mags comes back and then gets Hurt
5) Twins sweep/Valentine self destructs

With all this in mind I think July 04 is one of the worst sox months ever.

fledgedrallycap
07-30-2004, 02:58 PM
One of the worst in recent memory, that's for sure.

Every October since 1917 probably shoots to number one....

PaleHoseGeorge
07-30-2004, 03:01 PM
Maybe this is a little pre-mature but look at the events of this month so far:

1) Cubs Sweep Sox
2) All-Star Snub
3) Frank Gets Hurt
4) Mags comes back and then gets Hurt
5) Twins sweep/Valentine self destructs

With all this in mind I think July 04 is one of the worst sox months ever.
We trade for a frontline pitcher and get a new DH, plus fight for first place in the division and now you liken it to the worst month in recent Sox history? I hate to break it to you but there is *heavy* competition for this particular award and July, 2004 doesn't even come close.

Go with your first instinct. It is *very* premature.

na_na_na_na
07-30-2004, 03:06 PM
Freddie Garcia Trade happened on June 27th I believe.


To say that Carl Everett somehow replaces either frank or mags is a little too optimistic for me.

fledgedrallycap
07-30-2004, 03:07 PM
I think what stands out is the low points have been Grand Canyon deep...

Losing Maggs (again) & Frank, the sweep by the Twinkies in Chicago, Cubs sweeping our butts in Wrigley, falling from first to four games out in less than a week.

Is the season done? No. Is this the worst month, of course not. However, this probably was the worst of the season.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-30-2004, 03:17 PM
Freddie Garcia Trade happened on June 27th I believe.


To say that Carl Everett somehow replaces either frank or mags is a little too optimistic for me.
When was Freddy's first start? Or does that late-June start mean his July starts don't count for ****?
:?:

You're Jerry Reinsdorf's kind of fan. Throw in the towel. We know he would. He told us what he thought of us and Schueler did what his boss told him to do. Not even Ventura coming back from a compound fracture could save the '97 Sox from being disassembled.

:reinsy
"You would have to be CRAZY..."

And imagine all these years I mistakenly thought Reinsdorf was the villian of Sox Fandom for giving up on our team. Turns out he was right all along... and isn't the franchise stronger than ever for his foresight...

:redface:

JRIG
07-30-2004, 03:18 PM
When was Freddy's first start? Or does that late-June start mean his July starts don't count for ****?
:?:

You're Jerry Reinsdorf's kind of fan. Throw in the towel. We know he would. He told us what he thought of us and Schueler did what his boss told him to do. Not even Ventura coming back from a compound fracture could save the '97 Sox from being disassembled.

:reinsy
"You would have to be CRAZY..."

And imagine all these years I mistakenly thought Reinsdorf was the villian of Sox Fandom for giving up on our team. Turns out he was right all along... and isn't the franchise stronger than ever for his foresight...

:redface:
Heck, I'd say September 2003 was a bit more disappointing than this month.

Erik The Red
07-30-2004, 03:20 PM
5) Twins sweep/Valentine self destructs Valentin. No "e".

How come so many people still get this wrong? It's ON HIS JERSEY, for crying out loud.

Huisj
07-30-2004, 03:21 PM
However, this probably was the worst of the season.
we can sure hope so. if it wasn't, then what the heck is going to happen next?

August's Headlines:

Buerhle out with bad back
Valentin Tears hamstring, out for season
Konerko Breaks Ankle on Basepath
Shingo's magic lost; ERA now at 4
Garcia down, needs ligament replacement
KW pulls off waiver deal: Lee and Rowand for Ritchie; Navarro comes out of retirement
Sox fall to Fourth after sweep by Detroit

Now that would be the worst month ever.
I'm not sure what Burgundy font means, but I had to use something so that it wouldn't look like those were real. Maybe it's the "Oh no please don't happen" color, kind of like the opposite of deeppink.

RKMeibalane
07-30-2004, 03:23 PM
Heck, I'd say September 2003 was a bit more disappointing than this month.
I have to agree. Considering the fact that the Sox were cruising along... and then Jerry "The Tinkerer" Manuel sabotaged their chances of winning by allowed Paniaqua to pitch during the Minnesota series, September of 2003 has to down as the worst month. July of 2004 isn't worse, because we have yet to see how this month will effect the overall course of the Sox season. If they rebound in August, no one will care about what's happening now.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-30-2004, 03:25 PM
I have to agree. Considering the fact that the Sox were cruising along... and then Jerry "The Tinkerer" Manuel sabotaged their chances of winning by allowed Paniaqua to pitch during the Minnesota series, September of 2003 has to down as the worst month. July of 2004 isn't worse, because we have yet to see how this month will effect the overall course of the Sox season. If they rebound in August, no one will care about what's happening now.
Oh, you're just talking CRAZY now! :cool:

:reinsy
"My words, exactly."

fledgedrallycap
07-30-2004, 03:26 PM
Valentin. No "e".

How come so many people still get this wrong? It's ON HIS JERSEY, for crying out loud.Alright, we get it. Sometimes their finger slips, why does this bug people so much? You know who they're talking about.

RKMeibalane
07-30-2004, 03:34 PM
Alright, we get it. Sometimes their finger slips, why does this bug people so much? You know who they're talking about.
It bothers me just because I'm fairly anal when it comes to spelling errors.

jeremyb1
07-30-2004, 03:34 PM
We trade for a frontline pitcher and get a new DH, plus fight for first place in the division and now you liken it to the worst month in recent Sox history? I hate to break it to you but there is *heavy* competition for this particular award and July, 2004 doesn't even come close.

Go with your first instinct. It is *very* premature.

I know PHG and some other posters are going to be upset by this but it seems like this argument shouldn't be divided along partisan lines: The Garcia trade is a negative in light of our recent struggles not a positive. The deal was undeniably a move to win in the near future and with the possibility that Maggs has played his last game in a Sox uniform, Frank turning 37 next season, and Valentin and Loaiza free agents. I think it's premature to write th obituary for this season but the situation obviously looks far more bleak than at any point during the season. If we continue through this huge slide and find ourselves around or below .500 and trailing the Tribe as well as the Twins, it seems that the obvious solution would be to rebuild which is not such a promising option with a huge chunk of our young core missing.

cheeses_h_rice
07-30-2004, 03:34 PM
Alright, we get it. Sometimes their finger slips, why does this bug people so much? You know who they're talking about. And sometimes people don't know the real names of the 25 guys on our team's roster. That bugs me, for one, and I know I'm not alone.

(Also, there's a big difference between the Latino surname Valentin and the American/English surname Valentine.)

(P.p.s. Sox fans rag on Flub fans all the time for calling #34 Kerry Woods; shouldn't we set a better example?)

Huisj
07-30-2004, 03:34 PM
Alright, we get it. Sometimes their finger slips, why does this bug people so much? You know who they're talking about.
what key does the finger slip from to hit "e"? the n? that's a heck of a slip.

the reason it bugs people is because that's not his name, and nobody goes around typing things like "credee" or "leee" or buehrlee" or "ordoneze" or "garciae" or "pereze" or "harrise" or "martee". ok i think that's enough

anyways, the fact that a good chunk of people spell his name this way day after day here has got to be more than a finger slip.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-30-2004, 03:37 PM
I know PHG and some other posters are going to be upset by this but it seems like this argument shouldn't be divided along partisan lines: The Garcia trade is a negative in light of our recent struggles not a positive. The deal was undeniably a move to win in the near future and with the possibility that Maggs has played his last game in a Sox uniform, Frank turning 37 next season, and Valentin and Loaiza free agents. I think it's premature to write th obituary for this season but the situation obviously looks far more bleak than at any point during the season. If we continue through this huge slide and find ourselves around or below .500 and trailing the Tribe as well as the Twins, it seems that the obvious solution would be to rebuild which is not such a promising option with a huge chunk of our young core missing.
Upset? LOL! If this were posted by somebody who wasn't still contemplating his navel over Harris/Jimenez and Garcia/Reed I might think more of it.

:roflmao:

cheeses_h_rice
07-30-2004, 03:37 PM
I luuuv Joe Creed and Erin Rowland!

the_valenstache
07-30-2004, 03:40 PM
The Sox in July, for the Optimist

1. We're still actively in pursuit of 1st place
2. Paul Konerko has been leading/close to leading AL in HRs
3. Carlos Lee = 13 homers this month
4. Buehrle's near perfect game/our 2-game series shutout of the Indians
5. That Tigers comeback victory that we were all psyched about exactly a week ago
6. The emergence of Aaron Rowand
7. Not to mention that the trade deadline is still in July....

Big deal. There's been a lot of extremes this month (i.e. we play amazing/terrible baseball, based on the week) so, naturally, a large percentage of people will focus squarely on the negative events. It's alright...it's your right as a fan to isolate the bad and focus on it. Trying to understand/overcome weaknesses is a sign of the desire to succeed. Let's just hope that this month was the worst of the season.



(:smokin: = it helps)

BigEdWalsh
07-30-2004, 04:20 PM
The Sox in July, for the Optimist

1. We're still actively in pursuit of 1st place
2. Paul Konerko has been leading/close to leading AL in HRs
3. Carlos Lee = 13 homers this month
4. Buehrle's near perfect game/our 2-game series shutout of the Indians
5. That Tigers comeback victory that we were all psyched about exactly a week ago
6. The emergence of Aaron Rowand
7. Not to mention that the trade deadline is still in July....

Big deal. There's been a lot of extremes this month (i.e. we play amazing/terrible baseball, based on the week) so, naturally, a large percentage of people will focus squarely on the negative events. It's alright...it's your right as a fan to isolate the bad and focus on it. Trying to understand/overcome weaknesses is a sign of the desire to succeed. Let's just hope that this month was the worst of the season.



(:smokin: = it helps)
VERY well said!! :cheers:
Here's to that turn-around August! :gulp:

Bruck35
07-30-2004, 04:22 PM
I would say that this has definitely been the worst month of the season and possibly the worst month in a number of years. For any of you who have forgotten how positive things looked on July 1st, check this article out:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_gameday_recap.jsp?ymd=20040701&content_id=785735&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp

Basically, the Sox had just finished up a 3-game sweep of the twins at the metrodome and completed a 5 game winning streak, while the twins just finished a 5 game losing streak. The Sox had a 2-game division lead and everything was looking up.

Additionally, here's how the Sox scored their only two runs of that game:

"Frank Thomas drew a two-out walk, getting the benefit of the doubt on a close full-count offering. Lee lofted the next pitch toward the left-field stands, the ball carrying 349 feet and just over the outstretched leap of Lew Ford in left, for a 2-0 lead."

That game is a great example of how important Thomas is to the team. Having him here this month would have resulted in who knows how many multi-run HR's by Lee, instead of a slew of solo shots.

Getting back to the point, The Sox went 10-14 in July, while the Twins went 16-8, causing a 6-game swing in the division (so far). Now, if the Sox can keep it at only a 4-game cushion or cut the lead a little by the end of July, then this probably isn't the worst month in the past few years. BUT, if they do drop to 5 or 6 games back and maybe into 3rd place by August 1, then this could very easily be argued as the worst month in quite some time. When was the last time the first place Sox at the start of the month ended up 5 or 6 games back in 3rd place at the end of the month?

One final point...this month was supposed to be the one where the Sox put distance between themeselves and the twins. Maggs was coming back and Garcia filled that big hole in the rotation. If we were told at the beginning of July that Carl Everett would be joining the team in mid-July, I would be pretty darn confident that the Sox would be increasing their lead in the division.

The fact that we had so much optimism on July 1st is another reason why this month is one of the worst in quite some time...except for maybe Sept. '03.




Or maybe this was the twins lucky month, and they'll be coming back to earth soon. They certainly can't keep a .666 winning percentage, can they?? :?:

Dan H
07-30-2004, 05:38 PM
You can't really compare July 2004 to some of the worst months the Sox have had. Take any month in 1970 when they lost 106 games, and then you can talk about bad months. Having said that, July 2004 was still a month I would like to forget. Getting swept by the Cubs and Twins and continuing to lose on the west coast does not make for good memories.

South Side
07-30-2004, 05:44 PM
Valentin. No "e".

How come so many people still get this wrong? It's ON HIS JERSEY, for crying out loud.
Get over it.

Baby Fisk
07-30-2004, 05:48 PM
Dude, your handle is brutally misspelled. :cool:

gosox41
07-30-2004, 05:54 PM
Maybe this is a little pre-mature but look at the events of this month so far:

1) Cubs Sweep Sox
2) All-Star Snub
3) Frank Gets Hurt
4) Mags comes back and then gets Hurt
5) Twins sweep/Valentine self destructs

With all this in mind I think July 04 is one of the worst sox months ever.
Worst since Sept. 2003.


Bob

Win1ForMe
07-30-2004, 06:56 PM
I know PHG and some other posters are going to be upset by this but it seems like this argument shouldn't be divided along partisan lines: The Garcia trade is a negative in light of our recent struggles not a positive. The deal was undeniably a move to win in the near future and with the possibility that Maggs has played his last game in a Sox uniform, Frank turning 37 next season, and Valentin and Loaiza free agents. I think it's premature to write th obituary for this season but the situation obviously looks far more bleak than at any point during the season.Ok. So in your opinion, a catcher hitting .220 against right-handers and a AAA outfield prospect would have a greater impact on the Sox in the next three years than Freddy Garcia?:?:

:?: :?: And these two are for the insinuation that the impending free agency departure of Estaban Loaiza somehow diminishes our chances of contending in 2005.

idseer
07-30-2004, 08:04 PM
Valentin. No "e".

How come so many people still get this wrong? It's ON HIS JERSEY, for crying out loud.
who gives a ****?

JB98
07-30-2004, 08:29 PM
I know PHG and some other posters are going to be upset by this but it seems like this argument shouldn't be divided along partisan lines: The Garcia trade is a negative in light of our recent struggles not a positive. The deal was undeniably a move to win in the near future and with the possibility that Maggs has played his last game in a Sox uniform, Frank turning 37 next season, and Valentin and Loaiza free agents. I think it's premature to write th obituary for this season but the situation obviously looks far more bleak than at any point during the season. If we continue through this huge slide and find ourselves around or below .500 and trailing the Tribe as well as the Twins, it seems that the obvious solution would be to rebuild which is not such a promising option with a huge chunk of our young core missing.

Well, I'd say Garcia, Buerhle and Garland as the "young core" of a starting rotation is something to be positive about. We don't have a good young catcher any longer, but I'd much rather have three good young starters.

ondafarm
07-30-2004, 09:07 PM
Valentin. No "e".


Valentin gets no "E"? I beg to differ!!

Huisj
07-30-2004, 09:10 PM
Valentin gets no "E"? I beg to differ!!
the e isn't part of his name--it's part of his game.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 02:16 AM
Upset? LOL! If this were posted by somebody who wasn't still contemplating his navel over Harris/Jimenez and Garcia/Reed I might think more of it.

:roflmao:

You're right. Garcia will lead us to the World Series next season.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 02:28 AM
Ok. So in your opinion, a catcher hitting .220 against right-handers and a AAA outfield prospect would have a greater impact on the Sox in the next three years than Freddy Garcia?:?:

Well, I'd say Garcia, Buerhle and Garland as the "young core" of a starting rotation is something to be positive about. We don't have a good young catcher any longer, but I'd much rather have three good young starters.

Well first of all, you guys seem to be mistaken as far as the facts go here. We traded for Freddy Garcia with half a season remaining on his contract. He comitted to stay here when we agreed to pay him an average of 9 million a season which will undeniably trade off with other players over the next three seasons.

Garcia will be 29 next season. Players are generally considered to be in their prime from 27-30 and to face a decline after that. A young core which you build around are players that are young enough that they can be expected to improve in the coming seasons or at a minimum continue to perform at a high level for a number of seasons at a reasonable price (read not 9 million per season).

I couldn't care less what Olivo is hitting vs. RHP. He has nearly 3 times as many at bats against RHP than he does vs. LHP so obviosly you're not trying to argue that his numbers are somehow skewed by a platoon situation where he's been held out of games vs. righties (see Willie Harris vs. LHP). So what are you arguing? That .272/.373/.506 are poor numbers? Well they're above average from a catcher and they're coming from a 26 year old. And yeah, Reed is a prospect so obviously he's terrible. What good reasoning.

voodoochile
07-31-2004, 02:45 AM
You're right. Garcia will lead us to the World Series next season.

No no no no... it would be Olivo and Reed who would do it 6 years from now...:rolleyes:

PaleHoseGeorge
07-31-2004, 09:08 AM
You're right. Garcia will lead us to the World Series next season.
No, you're right jeremyb1. Jeremy Reed will lead someone else to the World Series before you stop contemplating your navel over yet another dozen prospects that the Sox shouldn't have traded.

:party:

Viva Magglio
07-31-2004, 11:52 AM
Valentin Tears hamstring, out for season
Some people would not necessarily see that as a bad thing. I am not one of them, but I wish Josť would just go away.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 02:01 PM
So at this point we made the Garcia trade so that we could resign him to a 9 million dollar extension and have him on our team next season and the Mariners made the trade because they're the stupidest team in baseball and two young everyday players making the minimum could never come close to a player making 9 million to start every five days? Just so I'm clear...

RKMeibalane
07-31-2004, 02:06 PM
So at this point we made the Garcia trade so that we could resign him to a 9 million dollar extension and have him on our team next season and the Mariners made the trade because they're the stupidest team in baseball and two young everyday players making the minimum could never come close to a player making 9 million to start every five days? Just so I'm clear...
First of all, there are no guarantees that the Mariners will end up with two everyday players. Olivo is a good player, but there's no reason to believe that Reed will automatically become a star now that he's playing for Seattle. For all we know, he might end up like Crede, teasing us with his potential for two months, only to flat-out suck during the other four.

Garcia gives the Sox a frontline starter who can win games and get people out. Aside from Buehrle, they didn't have anyone else in their rotation who was capable of doing that on a consistent basis. The Sox do, on the other hand, have more than enough mediocre outfielders on their roster. Reed likely would not have gotten any playing time with the way the team is currently constructed.

Win1ForMe
07-31-2004, 02:06 PM
So at this point we made the Garcia trade so that we could resign him to a 9 million dollar extension and have him on our team next season and the Mariners made the trade because they're the stupidest team in baseball and two young everyday players making the minimum could never come close to a player making 9 million to start every five days? Just so I'm clear...
Wha...????

jeremy, thanks for avoiding my question. And don't get too ahead of yourself, Reed isn't an everyday player just yet, and Miguel Olivo is a platoon player at this point in his career.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 02:08 PM
Wha...????

jeremy, thanks for avoiding my question. And don't get too ahead of yourself, Reed isn't an everyday player just yet, and Miguel Olivo is a platoon player at this point in his career.

See Post #32 at the top of the page. Being "a platoon player" hasn't stopped Olivo from being a good catcher this season.

RKMeibalane
07-31-2004, 02:11 PM
See Post #32 at the top of the page. Being "a platoon player" hasn't stopped Olivo from being a good catcher this season.
Nobody's disputing the fact that Miguel Olivo is a good catcher. However, as you yourself pointed out, he is still a platoon player, which means that he's not going to play every day. Thus, trading him for Freddy Garcia was a reasonable move on the part of KW. Olivo does a lot of things well. He has a great throwing arm. He has power. He also runs well. But his talent level isn't so high that he wasn't expendable. As well as he was playing for the Sox, he was still hitting in the number nine spot most of the time. What does that tell you?

As for Reed, see my previous post.

Win1ForMe
07-31-2004, 02:28 PM
Well first of all, you guys seem to be mistaken as far as the facts go here. We traded for Freddy Garcia with half a season remaining on his contract. He comitted to stay here when we agreed to pay him an average of 9 million a season which will undeniably trade off with other players over the next three seasons.$9 M per for a #1/#2 pitcher is a steal. I don't understand how you can think otherwise. If you can find me a comparable pitcher with a better contract then please do

Garcia will be 29 next season. Players are generally considered to be in their prime from 27-30 and to face a decline after that. Johnson, Shilling, Clemens, Glavine, Leiter, Maddux, Pettite, Russ Ortiz, Radke, Brown, etc. have all pitched very well between the ages of 29-31, and in many cases beyond. What the hell are you talking about? You're just grasping at straws. Besides, if Garcia is 29 next year, and 30 the year after, wouldn't that mean the Sox for the best years in his career?

A young core which you build around are players that are young enough that they can be expected to improve in the coming seasons or at a minimum continue to perform at a high level for a number of seasons at a reasonable price (read not 9 million per season). That's nice, but you still haven't shown me how Reed + Olivo will help this team more in the next 3 years than Garcia. Until you do, this isn't even worth arguing about.

I guess the main question should be, are you looking to build a team ready to compete 3-4 years from now, or a team that will compete in the next 3 years?

habibharu
07-31-2004, 02:29 PM
$9 M per for a #1/#2 pitcher is a steal. I don't understand how you can think otherwise. If you can find me a comparable pitcher with a better contract then please do


Johnson, Shilling, Clemens, Glavine, Leiter, Maddux, Pettite, Russ Ortiz, Radke, Brown, etc. have all pitched very well between the ages of 29-31, and in many cases beyond. What the hell are you talking about? You're just grasping at straws.


That's nice, but you still haven't shown me how Reed + Olivo will help this team more in the next 3 years than Garcia. Until you do, this isn't even worth arguing about. well reed helps by making lee expendable, so you can trade him, and olivo fills a hole at C that i dont know how the hell we are gonna fill otherwise!

RKMeibalane
07-31-2004, 02:30 PM
That's nice, but you still haven't shown me how Reed + Olivo will help this team more in the next 3 years than Garcia. Until you do, this isn't even worth arguing about.
I think the best thing for us to do now is just to ignore jeremyb1. He's still bitter that Jerry Manuel was fired.

RKMeibalane
07-31-2004, 02:31 PM
well reed helps by making lee expendable, so you can trade him, and olivo fills a hole at C that i dont know how the hell we are gonna fill otherwise!
You're assuming that Reed is going to fulfill his potential. There's no guarantee that he's going to do that. Look at Borchard. He was supposed to be the next Sox superstar, and he looks like he's never player before.

habibharu
07-31-2004, 02:33 PM
See Post #32 at the top of the page. Being "a platoon player" hasn't stopped Olivo from being a good catcher this season. and the only reason he is a platoon player is because he is 25 YR OLD C!! you just dont trade guys like this! The Catcher postion is weak as hell in our system and we trade a guy making nothing, that we could of had for the next 5, 6 yrs! Garcia is good, but is NOT an ace! aces dont give up 4 runs at home to the division rival!

Win1ForMe
07-31-2004, 02:34 PM
well reed helps by making lee expendable, so you can trade him, and olivo fills a hole at C that i dont know how the hell we are gonna fill otherwise!
Jeremy Reed is hitting .262 in Tacoma; Carlos Lee is hitting .299 with 19 HR in the MAJOR LEAGUES. That doesn't exactly make Lee expendable.

habibharu
07-31-2004, 02:34 PM
You're assuming that Reed is going to fulfill his potential. There's no guarantee that he's going to do that. Look at Borchard. He was supposed to be the next Sox superstar, and he looks like he's never player before. well borchard never tore it up like reed. and even when he was doing good, he was a guy who struck out alot, never took walks. reed has a good eye and from what i have heard, is pretty good defensively

RKMeibalane
07-31-2004, 02:35 PM
and the only reason he is a platoon player is because he is 25 YR OLD C!! you just dont trade guys like this! The Catcher postion is weak as hell in our system and we trade a guy making nothing, that we could of had for the next 5, 6 yrs! Garcia is good, but is NOT an ace! aces dont give up 4 runs at home to the division rival! Randy Johnson gave up four runs last night. Is he not an ace then?

habibharu
07-31-2004, 02:35 PM
Jeremy Reed is hitting .262 in Tacoma; Carlos Lee is hitting .299 with 19 HR in the MAJOR LEAGUES. That doesn't exactly make Lee expendable. reed is injured! he hurt both of his wrists! do you realize that this guy is only 21!?

habibharu
07-31-2004, 02:36 PM
Randy Johnspn gave up four runs last night. Is he not an ace then? Thats one game! johnsons ERA is like 2.3! and the game was at coors! so far, freddy has pitched like crap at home

RKMeibalane
07-31-2004, 02:37 PM
reed is injured! he hurt both of his wrists! do you realize that this guy is only 21!?
And what if he continues to experience problems with his wrists in the years to come? I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of the Sox carrying around damaged goods. The Sox needed pitching, and so they traded for Freddy Garcia. Let's wait until the season is over before we try to analyze the results of this deal.

Win1ForMe
07-31-2004, 02:37 PM
and the only reason he is a platoon player is because he is 25 YR OLD C!! you just dont trade guys like this! The Catcher postion is weak as hell in our system and we trade a guy making nothing, that we could of had for the next 5, 6 yrs! Garcia is good, but is NOT an ace! aces dont give up 4 runs at home to the division rival!
Schilling gave up 7 runs to the Yankees in Fenway a couple of starts ago. He's clearly not an ace.

RKMeibalane
07-31-2004, 02:38 PM
Thats one game! johnsons ERA is like 2.3! and the game was at coors! so far, freddy has pitched like crap at home
Four runs is hardly an insurmountable lead. Right now, the Sox offense is the problem, not their pitching staff. Asking Garcia, Buehrle, or anyone else to throw a shut-out isn't fair. The guys swinging the bats need to do their part, as well.

habibharu
07-31-2004, 02:39 PM
Schilling gave up 7 runs to the Yankees in Fenway a couple of starts ago. He's clearly not an ace. Im just sayin that i wanna see garcia pitch more at home. so far, however, he doesnt look too good

Win1ForMe
07-31-2004, 02:40 PM
well borchard never tore it up like reed. and even when he was doing good, he was a guy who struck out alot, never took walks. reed has a good eye and from what i have heard, is pretty good defensively
Ok, so let's say you trade Carlos and keep Reed. You still don't have Garcia, he's going to the Yanks and getting Vazquez money on the spot. Where's your pitching come from then?

habibharu
07-31-2004, 02:40 PM
Four runs is hardly an insurmountable lead. Right now, the Sox offense is the problem, not their pitching staff. Asking Garcia, Buehrle, or anyone else to throw a shut-out isn't fair. The guys swinging the bats need to do their part, as well. im not talking about that though. im talking about the fact that garcia is NOT an ace, he is a very good pitcher. but he is not in the class of guys like mulder, hudson, schilling, brown, pedro

habibharu
07-31-2004, 02:41 PM
Ok, so let's say you trade Carlos and keep Reed. You still don't have Garcia, he's going to the Yanks and getting Vazquez money on the spot. Where's your pitching come from then? you could trade lee for some young pithching. a guy like sheets or perez who doesnt make too much money.

OEO Magglio
07-31-2004, 02:41 PM
Thats one game! johnsons ERA is like 2.3! and the game was at coors! so far, freddy has pitched like crap at homecrap? no. His era is 4.5 at the cell which definitely isn't great but it isn't crap. Freddy's era is 3.27 and RJ's is 2.79 in the national league.

OEO Magglio
07-31-2004, 02:43 PM
you could trade lee for some young pithching. a guy like sheets or perez who doesnt make too much money.Your nuts if you think the sox could have traded Lee for either Perez or Sheets.

Win1ForMe
07-31-2004, 02:45 PM
you could trade lee for some young pithching. a guy like sheets or perez who doesnt make too much money.
LMAO. I bet the Brewers would jump at the chance to trade Ben Sheets for Carlos Lee.

ondafarm
07-31-2004, 02:52 PM
reed. . . is pretty good defensively
I agree with that assessment. I have seen him play at both A and AA ball and a certain amount at AAA. He has good defensive instincts and abilities. He also obviously listened to and learnt from his coaches as towards positioning, jumps and technique. Greatest defensive player ever? No. But before being traded, the best defensive outfielder in the Sox organization (at least above low-A.)

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 02:59 PM
$9 M per for a #1/#2 pitcher is a steal. I don't understand how you can think otherwise. If you can find me a comparable pitcher with a better contract then please do

CC Sabathia - 2004 Salary: 2.7 Million
Brad Penny - 2004 Salary 3.7 Million
Mark Mulder - 2004 Salary: 4.5 Million
Roy Oswalt - 2004 Salary: 3.3 Million
Carlos Zambrano - 2004 Salary: $ 450,000 (!!)

What you say, these players are all cheap because they're good young players that have yet to reach free agency? Ding Ding Ding!! Correct. Just like Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo.

Johnson, Shilling, Clemens, Glavine, Leiter, Maddux, Pettite, Russ Ortiz, Radke, Brown, etc. have all pitched very well between the ages of 29-31, and in many cases beyond. What the hell are you talking about? You're just grasping at straws.

Well you cut out the part where I said that a good young rotation would involve players that are all expected to improve or at a minimum maintain the same level of performance. Moreover, a young core would likely be inexpensive like the players I cited above. My quote is out of context so that it seems I'm arguing Garcia will be a shell of his former self by the end of the contract.

First of all, do you have any knowledge of statistics? Because there are general trends which most of the data fits into and then there are outliers. If I said, most people don't win the lottery and your third cousin and your neighbor have both won, that doesn't mean most people win the lottery.

Furthermore, some of these examples do not prove your point. Going by ERA+ (ERA relative to the league adjusted for park factors where 100 is average), Maddux had his best two seasons at 28 and 29 (273, 259 ERA+) and never topped 191 after that. Again, citing exceptions to a trend isn't that difficult. That doesn't mean the trend is wrong. Jamie Navarro, Todd Ritchie, Tim Belcher, Pedro, Derek Lowe, Alex Fernandez, and on and on. My original statement which I will stick to is that most players have their best seasons prior to the their 29th birthday.

Therefore, Garcia will most likely not improve off of this season over the next three and it's quite unlikely that he will perform as well. That doesn't mean he'll be a lot worse but he won't be as good.

That's nice, but you still haven't shown me how Reed + Olivo will help this team more in the next 3 years than Garcia. Until you do, this isn't even worth arguing about.

I don't have to show you how they'll help as much, I have to show you how they'll help about one ninth as much because that's how much less they'll be making. Reed will make the minimum for his first three seasons and Olivo still has one year left prior to arbitration. It doesn't take a genius to know that you don't expect your Honda Civic to be as good of a car as a BMW but you buy it anyways because the value is greater. You'd rather be able to eat out sometimes, send your kids to college, etc because those things are important to you also.

Olivo has a VORP of 8 this season in 150 plate apperances. Lets assume he's Seattle's full time catcher next season which is every indication. He doesn't have to improve at all and his VORP would be 16. Garcia's this season has been 34. So, as long as Olivo doesn't fall off and receives regular playing time, he alone should be about half as valuable as Garcia next season at a salary that will probably be 1/14th of what Garcia earns next season. That's without even considering Reed or Morse. We could have Miguel Olivo and sign a player of our choosing for 6.5 million next season. I'd take that over Garcia.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 03:01 PM
You still don't have Garcia, he's going to the Yanks and getting Vazquez money on the spot. Where's your pitching come from then?

Why? Because you said so? Because the Yanks sign every free agent ever? Because they have an unlimited payroll? Because no one has ever turned them down?

You really don't think we could've turned 9 million per season into a good player in free agency?

RKMeibalane
07-31-2004, 03:09 PM
You really don't think we could've turned 9 million per season into a good player in free agency?
Even if the Sox had nine million dollars to spend, I don't think JR would have used it to lure free-agents.

Win1ForMe
07-31-2004, 03:31 PM
CC Sabathia - 2004 Salary: 2.7 Million
Brad Penny - 2004 Salary 3.7 Million
Mark Mulder - 2004 Salary: 4.5 Million
Roy Oswalt - 2004 Salary: 3.3 Million
Carlos Zambrano - 2004 Salary: $ 450,000 (!!)

What you say, these players are all cheap because they're good young players that have yet to reach free agency? Ding Ding Ding!! Correct. Just like Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo.
Except Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo aren't pitchers, or even great position players, so even mentioning them with the above pitchers is incredibly stupid. It doesn't matter if they're cheap or not because at $9M, Freddy Garcia will still help this team more than Miguel Olivo and Jeremy Reed at $700 K.

First of all, do you have any knowledge of statistics? Because there are general trends which most of the data fits into and then there are outliers. If I said, most people don't win the lottery and your third cousin and your neighbor have both won, that doesn't mean most people win the lottery.
Ok, then give me a list of pitchers that have performed as well as Garcia early in their career and fallen apart after 31. Remember, make sure it's due to age and not injury.

Jamie Navarro, Todd Ritchie, Tim Belcher, Pedro, Derek Lowe, Alex Fernandez, and on and on. My original statement which I will stick to is that most players have their best seasons prior to the their 29th birthday.
Navarro, Ritchie, Lowe all sucked with the exception of one good season, none were as good as Garcia. Pedro and Alex Fernandez declined due to injury. Please use better examples next time.

Olivo has a VORP of 8 this season in 150 plate apperances. Lets assume he's Seattle's full time catcher next season which is every indication. He doesn't have to improve at all and his VORP would be 16. Garcia's this season has been 34. So, as long as Olivo doesn't fall off and receives regular playing time, he alone should be about half as valuable as Garcia next season at a salary that will probably be 1/14th of what Garcia earns next season. That's without even considering Reed or Morse. We could have Miguel Olivo and sign a player of our choosing for 6.5 million next season. I'd take that over Garcia.
Is this VORP system the same one that has the Sox ahead of the Twins in the "adjusted" standings?:rolleyes: But more importantly, please tell me a pitcher that is as good as Garcia that we could sign for $6.5 million next season.

Win1ForMe
07-31-2004, 03:35 PM
Why? Because you said so? Because the Yanks sign every free agent ever? Because they have an unlimited payroll? Because no one has ever turned them down?
Basically, yes. You should give Steinbrenner more credit.

You really don't think we could've turned 9 million per season into a good player in free agency?
If there's one as good as Garcia, that would be as willing to sign a discount 3yr/$27M deal, then you're welcome to point them out.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 04:24 PM
Nobody's disputing the fact that Miguel Olivo is a good catcher. However, as you yourself pointed out, he is still a platoon player, which means that he's not going to play every day. Thus, trading him for Freddy Garcia was a reasonable move on the part of KW. Olivo does a lot of things well. He has a great throwing arm. He has power. He also runs well. But his talent level isn't so high that he wasn't expendable. As well as he was playing for the Sox, he was still hitting in the number nine spot most of the time. What does that tell you?

As for Reed, see my previous post.

Well I put platoon player in quotes. Olivo has not been used as a platoon player as he has 2.5 times moer at bats vs. RHP than LHP. He's having a good season. He's 26 and his numbers vs RHP have vastly improved in just one season. The fact that the Sox organization didn't think highly of him doesn't mean he wasn't a good player. That just adds insult to injury in my opinion. The M's obviously though highly of him since they insisted on putting him in the deal. The same goes for numerous analysts.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 04:25 PM
You're assuming that Reed is going to fulfill his potential. There's no guarantee that he's going to do that. Look at Borchard. He was supposed to be the next Sox superstar, and he looks like he's never player before.

Borchard was never anywhere near as good as Reed was though. You're comparing apples and oranges. Just because both guys were outfield prospects in our system that generated hype doesn't mean they're similar.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 04:26 PM
Jeremy Reed is hitting .262 in Tacoma

.288/.348/.490 actually.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 04:27 PM
And what if he continues to experience problems with his wrists in the years to come?

Do you have any knowledge of chronic wrist injuries affecting baseball players? I've certainly never heard of anything along those lines.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 04:29 PM
Even if the Sox had nine million dollars to spend, I don't think JR would have used it to lure free-agents.

Hehe. Well then we're in even more trouble because that means we'll lose Maggs, Loaiza, and Valentin without spending that money. And maybe we'll deal Garcia or other players to cut salary during the offseason if we struggle down the stretch.

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 04:53 PM
Except Jeremy Reed and Miguel Olivo aren't pitchers, or even great position players, so even mentioning them with the above pitchers is incredibly stupid. It doesn't matter if they're cheap or not because at $9M, Freddy Garcia will still help this team more than Miguel Olivo and Jeremy Reed at $700 K.

Pitchers are somehow inherently more valuable than hitters? Olivo, Reed, and 8.7 million on the free agent market couldn't possibly be more valuable than Freddy Garcia? Huh?! Reed and Olivo are young players with ceilings. Those players weren't "great" either when they were in the minors.

Ok, then give me a list of pitchers that have performed as well as Garcia early in their career and fallen apart after 31. Remember, make sure it's due to age and not injury.

Dude, you're going to have to read the posts if we're going to do this. I accused you of taking my last comment out of context because it made it seem as if I suggested Garcia would fall apart when I only argued he was unlikely to improve his performance and probably would drop off a couple small ticks by the end of the deal. Now you're asking me to prove he'll fall apart?? Again, huh?!?! Also saying examples of decline couldn't be related to injury is absurd. Do you think physical deterioration is somehow uninvolved with decline? Or that Garcia is somehow immune to injury over the next three seasons?

Navarro, Ritchie, Lowe all sucked with the exception of one good season, none were as good as Garcia. Pedro and Alex Fernandez declined due to injury. Please use better examples next time.

Well Pedro hasn't missed any significant time. He's declined since he's older and he's no longer in the condition he once was. Again, what do you think causes players to decline when they're 35 or 40 (I'm assuming you don't dispute that)? Navarro posted above average ERAs in 6 seasons, Lowe 6, and Ritchie 2 so all had more than one good season. I don't see what the calliber of the pitcher has to do with the argument since we're talking about the general career arc shared by all starting pitchers. I don't see how the quality of a pitcher affects his development arc. Really good pitchers improve into their 30s and worse pitchers flame out?

More examples: Charles Nagy, Scott Erickson, Mike Mussina, Aaron Sele, Rick Helling, Juan Guzman, Pat Hentgen, Andy Ashby, Mike Hampton, Jose Lima, Andy Benes, Omar Daal, Kevin Tapani, Steve Traschel. I can find tons and tons more if you want them. It's about two out of every three starting pitchers if you just start looking up starters' stats.

Is this VORP system the same one that has the Sox ahead of the Twins in the "adjusted" standings?:rolleyes:

No, although I'm guessing you have a really good understanding of what adjusted standings are based on your comment.

But more importantly, please tell me a pitcher that is as good as Garcia that we could sign for $6.5 million next season.

Well first of all, that's what Garcia is making next season. To be fair we'd have to look at a pitcher that could be signed over the next three seasons at an average of 9 million a year less Reed and Olivo's tiny salaries. Furthermore unless you're arguing Olivo and Reed's contributions are and will continue to be nil (in which case we should just end the conversation now), then the pitcher wouldn't have to be as good as Garcia, no? He'd have to as good as Garcia - Reed+Olivo, right?

The question I want answered though is how did Garcia or even a number one starter (I'll be generous and assume Garcia is an undeniable one for the sake of this conversation) become the one and only type of player the White Sox need to win games over the next three seasons? If the money was instead spent on an upgrade over Jose at SS (Nomar or Renteria?), a 2B, resigning Maggs, making a run at Beltran, or split between two positions (an ace reliver and a good number 3?) the money would somehow be spent less efficiently than on Garcia?

jeremyb1
07-31-2004, 04:54 PM
Basically, yes. You should give Steinbrenner more credit.


If there's one as good as Garcia, that would be as willing to sign a discount 3yr/$27M deal, then you're welcome to point them out.

Wow. I have huge problems with calling Garcia's deal a discount. Vazquez just signed for 10 and he's undeniably better.

Win1ForMe
08-01-2004, 03:13 AM
Pitchers are somehow inherently more valuable than hitters? Olivo, Reed, and 8.7 million on the free agent market couldn't possibly be more valuable than Freddy Garcia? If you can find a pitcher as good as Garcia that you know is willing to play for 8.7 million (and this is most important too) FOR THE WHITE SOX, then please show him to me. Of course you don't know, and the best you can do is pull out a free agent list and speculate, which to me means very little.

Your first problem is assuming that just because Jeremy Reed is a highly touted prospect, he can perform at a high enough level NEXT YEAR to warrant playing in the major leagues. Whether or not he works cheap (which you seem to be enamored with, his bang-for-buck value) is meaningless because he still hasn't had one ML at-bat. Heck, Joe Crede is cheap too, and even his poor production has value at his price, but that doesn't meen I want him on the team. Freddy Garcia is a sure thing, and more importantly he's a pitcher, which makes him more important than a #9 hitting-platoon catcher and AAA outfielder who MAY or may not produce. Our discussion is moot until you can prove to me that Reed will be an adequate player, but you don't know that so you obviously can't prove it.


Also saying examples of decline couldn't be related to injury is absurd. Do you think physical deterioration is somehow uninvolved with decline? Or that Garcia is somehow immune to injury over the next three seasons?No, but injury shouldn't be related to your argument. You can just as easily get an injury at 24 as at 31, that's why you should only provide examples where age (and this your argument) was a significant factor in a pitcher's decline, and make sure it's between the ages of 29-31 (the age in which the Sox control Garcia).

Navarro posted above average ERAs in 6 seasons, Lowe 6, and Ritchie 2 so all had more than one good season.Navarro is an ok example, Lowe has been a starter for only 3 seasons so I don't know what you're talking about there, Todd Ritchie is a horrible example.

I don't see what the calliber of the pitcher has to do with the argument since we're talking about the general career arc shared by all starting pitchers. I don't see how the quality of a pitcher affects his development arc.Gee, maybe if a pitcher has only 2 good seasons in his career (and even that's debatable with Ritchie) his decline with "age" isn't really a decline but rather proof of him sucking from the very beginning? You know, it's possible his good seasons were just a fluke.

More examples: Charles Nagy, Scott Erickson, Mike Mussina, Aaron Sele, Rick Helling, Juan Guzman, Pat Hentgen, Andy Ashby, Mike Hampton, Jose Lima, Andy Benes, Omar Daal, Kevin Tapani, Steve Traschel. Ok, Nagy = injury, Erickson = injury, Mussina = didn't decline until 35, Sele = had best season at 31, Helling = one good season NEXT, Guzman = ok (didn't he have injuries?), Hentgen = ok, Ashby = had good seasons after 32, Hampton = Coors Field, Lima = had 2 good seasons in his career, Benes = injuries, Daal = ok, Trachsel = still good at 33, Tapani = didn't fall apart till he was 34.

So out of 14 examples, only 3 could realistically apply to Freddy Garcia. Great work there.

Win1ForMe
08-01-2004, 03:18 AM
Wow. I have huge problems with calling Garcia's deal a discount. Vazquez just signed for 10 and he's undeniably better.Vazquez signed for 4 yrs/$45 M, so $11 M per. And now look at this:

CAREER
Vazquez: 75 W - 74 L, 4.15 ERA
Garcia: 80 W - 52 L, 3.88 ERA

SEASON
Vazquez: 12 W - 6 L, 4.16 ERA
Garcia: 8 W - 9 L, 3.27 ERA

So Vazquez is undeniably better?:dunno:

Maybe we should put a limit on insanity per thread.

jeremyb1
08-01-2004, 02:56 PM
If you can find a pitcher as good as Garcia that you know is willing to play for 8.7 million (and this is most important too) FOR THE WHITE SOX, then please show him to me. Of course you don't know, and the best you can do is pull out a free agent list and speculate, which to me means very little.

Well you chose not to respond to the remainder of my post so you've yet to explain to me why 9 million dollars is only well spent on a number one starter. Now you're basically telling me that any free agents I do discuss spending money on will be speculation (hmm, you don't think James Baldwin would sign for 8 million next season) which just seems like a ridiculous way of trying to set it up so I can't propose any alternatives. You've structured the debate so that we're operating under the assumption that no player can have the impact Freddy Garcia will on the White Sox which is just preposterous.

Even though it's just speculation, I'll participate anyways. Here are the players I'd sign in the offseason if we kept Reed and Olivo:

1) Carlos Beltran - One of the best outfielders in the game. Hits for power, draws walks, plays a good CF, and steals at an unbelievable rate. the $15 earmarked for Garcia and Contreras more than get the job done.

2) Freddy Garcia - 9 million a season and an opportunity to play with his best friend reels him in. If it doesn't offer 10 million and cut a million elsewhere in the budget.

3) JD Drew - He's been largely injury free this season and has absolutely crushed the ball when he's been healthy.

4, 5, 6) Matt Clement, Carl Pavano, Odalis Perez - All three figure to sign for 6-7 million.


Your first problem is assuming that just because Jeremy Reed is a highly touted prospect, he can perform at a high enough level NEXT YEAR to warrant playing in the major leagues. Whether or not he works cheap (which you seem to be enamored with, his bang-for-buck value

You better not going into business ever. If you place little emphais on efficiently using the company's money to create a better product and achieve the company's goals. I'll try to break it down for you one more time. We have a baseball team whose goal is to win games. We have an owner who presents our GM with a set budget during the offseason which is not large enough to give us an advantage over the top teams in baseball. The way we win games is by putting the best players on the field within the budget we're given. Hence, bang for buck is how one makes the playoffs and wins championships. Three our four terrible contracts with a 60 million dollar payroll can kill your team (see Rockies, Colorado). A few All-Star calliber players making peanuts is a huge boost to your team (see Marlins, Florida).

is meaningless because he still hasn't had one ML at-bat.

I don't understand that. Are you arguing he'll never have a major league at bat. Or that players without major league at bats never become good?

Heck, Joe Crede is cheap too, and even his poor production has value at his price, but that doesn't meen I want him on the team.

Since when are we comparing Joe Crede and Jeremy Reed? Ben Davis is cheap too but I don't see what that has to do with Jeremy Reed.

Freddy Garcia is a sure thing

Y'know I think people overrate the stability of veterans as much as they underrate the ability to project the performance of minor leaguers. Garcia is a sure thing?! That's ridiculous. Guys go down with injuries all the time (remember Parque, Sirotka, and Baldwin?) some of which they never fully recover from. Some baseball players inexplicably fall off in production when they look like superstars for years to come (Jose Lima, Richard Hildalgo, Kevin Millwood). Garcia is not a sure thing, there's significant risk involved in signing anyone to a 9 million dollar a season contract especially a pitcher.

and more importantly he's a pitcher, which makes him more important than a #9 hitting-platoon catcher and AAA outfielder who MAY or may not produce. Our discussion is moot until you can prove to me that Reed will be an adequate player, but you don't know that so you obviously can't prove it.

Is there a reason for that or is it just because you said so? You can't prove Garcia will pitch as well as this season for the next few or that he won't get injured and fail to pitch at all. Why do I have to prove what type of player Reed is going to be. No one ever has anything better than a good idea. I already discussed how Olivo should be half as valuable as Garcia at 1/14th of the cost next season so I'm not sure I have to prove anything about Reed. I think the mere fact that he's one of the top prospects in baseball means it's very risky to trade him. Calling Olivo a #9 hitter (he'd be about the third or fourth best hitter in our lineup right now) and a platoon hitter is crap. We talked about those labels before. They're loaded terms that aren't accurate and you must realize that at this point.

No, but injury shouldn't be related to your argument. You can just as easily get an injury at 24 as at 31, that's why you should only provide examples where age (and this your argument) was a significant factor in a pitcher's decline, and make sure it's between the ages of 29-31 (the age in which the Sox control Garcia).

No way. Maybe you can just as easily get injured from 18-25 as you can from 29 and forwards but not in your mid 20s once a guy has passed the injury nexus for young pitchers. You're honestly telling me you don't think age does anything to increase the probability of injury? I think the fact that most of the pitchers I look at faced injuries is more than a coincidence.

Ok, Nagy = injury, Erickson = injury, Mussina = didn't decline until 35, Sele = had best season at 31, Helling = one good season NEXT, Guzman = ok (didn't he have injuries?), Hentgen = ok, Ashby = had good seasons after 32, Hampton = Coors Field, Lima = had 2 good seasons in his career, Benes = injuries, Daal = ok, Trachsel = still good at 33, Tapani = didn't fall apart till he was 34.

So out of 14 examples, only 3 could realistically apply to Freddy Garcia. Great work there.

Haha. Well this is about the 8th post and you don't seem to have grasped my argument yet. I'm not saying that guys fall apart after they turn 30 or that they're no longer good. I'm arguing that they're not as good as they were prior to turning 30. Look up the numbers, Mussina, Sele (look up his numbers if you think his best season was at 31), Ashby, Traschel, and Tapani all had their best seasons prior to turning 30 years old. Whether or not they had good seasons after they turned 30 is completely and totally irrelevant to my argument as long as they weren't as good as the seasons in their prime. Garcia is having his best season now (or had it a few seasons back) so he most likely will not duplicate or improve on this season over the next few.

Again, I don't it to be coincidence that Guzman, Nagy, Erickson, and Benes all developed injuries. This is what happens when your body ages. Its funny you say that Lima and Helling had two good seasons because that's how many Garcia has had with an ERA under 4.

jeremyb1
08-01-2004, 03:12 PM
Vazquez signed for 4 yrs/$45 M, so $11 M per. And now look at this:

CAREER
Vazquez: 75 W - 74 L, 4.15 ERA
Garcia: 80 W - 52 L, 3.88 ERA

SEASON
Vazquez: 12 W - 6 L, 4.16 ERA
Garcia: 8 W - 9 L, 3.27 ERA

So Vazquez is undeniably better?:dunno:

Maybe we should put a limit on insanity per thread.

Well career ERA is a pretty crude way of looking at it. Season is also pretty irrelevant since Vazquez was signed coming off of last season, not this season.

Lets look at each pitchers last four seasons before signing (to be generous to Freddy):

Garcia:

2001 (Age 25) - 3.05 ERA, 3.98 Adjusted ERA (DERA), 7.0 Wins Above Replacement (WARP)
2002 (26) - 4.39 ERA, 4.56 DERA, 5.1 WARP
2003 (27) - 4.51 ERA, 4.89 DERA, 4.0 WARP
2004 (28) - 3.27 ERA, 3.45 DERA, 5.4 and counting WARP

Vazquez:

2000 (23) - 4.05 ERA, 4.12 DERA, 5.2 WARP
2001 (24) - 3.42 ERA, 3.29 DERA, 9.3 WARP
2002 (25) - 3.91 ERA, 4.58 DERA, 4.2 WARP
2003 (26) - 3.24 ERA, 3.76 DERA, 6.9 WARP

You can argue Garcia's walk year was slightly better but I'd say Vazquez takes the cake in every other category. Sure if you want to use career ERA and place a ton of emphasis on his dreadful '98 and '99 performances as a 21 and 22 year old or fail to adjust ERA with an eye towards defense and park effects maybe Garcia looks better but otherwise I think Vazquez has a decisive edge even if you did want to throw in this season.

Flight #24
08-01-2004, 04:02 PM
You can argue Garcia's walk year was slightly better but I'd say Vazquez takes the cake in every other category. Sure if you want to use career ERA and place a ton of emphasis on his dreadful '98 and '99 performances as a 21 and 22 year old or fail to adjust ERA with an eye towards defense and park effects maybe Garcia looks better but otherwise I think Vazquez has a decisive edge even if you did want to throw in this season.

Well sure, you want to discount those years for Vazquez, but not the years when Freddy was pitching with ruptured eardrums. His #s this year look remarkably in line with those of his first few. There was a medical problem in the other 2, not so hard tobeliev that he could really be the guy he was those first few years.

Win1ForMe
08-01-2004, 04:36 PM
Even though it's just speculation...So that means it's worthless. What's your basis for assuming any of these players would sign with us, just because we're offering them money? They're likely to attract numerous offers, so there's no guarantee we'd get any of them. Freddy Garcia is a done deal, I don't have to worry about that.

1) Carlos Beltran - One of the best outfielders in the game. Hits for power, draws walks, plays a good CF, and steals at an unbelievable rate. the $15 earmarked for Garcia and Contreras more than get the job done.Wait a second, you just spent countless paragraphs telling me how great you think Olivo and Reed are because they're cheap, and now you're telling me you'd spent $15 M on a player with a .918 OPS when you have Aaron Rowand with a .913 making MUCH MUCH less? Granted, Beltran is a better player, but value-wise probably not. I'd like a little consistency from you.

And besides, don't you think that giving Beltran $15M is overpaying for a player who's never had a .950 OPS in his career?

2) Freddy Garcia - 9 million a season and an opportunity to play with his best friend reels him in. If it doesn't offer 10 million and cut a million elsewhere in the budget.If we don't trade for him, he goes to the Yankees, and signs a Vazquez type deal. We don't get him.

4, 5, 6) Matt Clement, Carl Pavano, Odalis Perez - All three figure to sign for 6-7 million.I wouldn't want those pitchers. Matt Clement is 29, Pavano 28, and Perez 27. Giving them long-term contracts would put us at risk for a decline in performance at the end of those deals. Nice to see you're basically willing to pull things out of your ass to hammer Kenny with on the Garcia deal, but overlook them otherwise.

Win1ForMe
08-01-2004, 04:49 PM
Garcia:

2001 (Age 25) - 3.05 ERA, 3.98 Adjusted ERA (DERA), 7.0 Wins Above Replacement (WARP)
2002 (26) - 4.39 ERA, 4.56 DERA, 5.1 WARP
2003 (27) - 4.51 ERA, 4.89 DERA, 4.0 WARP
2004 (28) - 3.27 ERA, 3.45 DERA, 5.4 and counting WARP

Vazquez:

2000 (23) - 4.05 ERA, 4.12 DERA, 5.2 WARP
2001 (24) - 3.42 ERA, 3.29 DERA, 9.3 WARP
2002 (25) - 3.91 ERA, 4.58 DERA, 4.2 WARP
2003 (26) - 3.24 ERA, 3.76 DERA, 6.9 WARP:roflmao:

Wow, nice of you to not include two of Garcia's better years (2000 and 1999) while also excluding Vazquez's sub-par 2004. Pretty slick on your part. This comparison also doesn't mention the inner ear problems which could have caused Garcia's production to dip in 2002/2003 (edit). And even with your numbers, Garcia's 2001 is better than Vazquez's 2000 and Garcia's 2004 is better than Vazquez 2003. So I don't understand how you can conclude he's "undeniably better." But I'm sure you'll try.

batmanZoSo
08-01-2004, 05:33 PM
Maybe this is a little pre-mature but look at the events of this month so far:

1) Cubs Sweep Sox
2) All-Star Snub
3) Frank Gets Hurt
4) Mags comes back and then gets Hurt
5) Twins sweep/Valentine self destructs

With all this in mind I think July 04 is one of the worst sox months ever.
April 2001 will never be topped. That was dissapointing, disillusioning, frustrating and devastating. We finished 8-15, about 8 games out of first in a year where we were legitimate World Series contenders (sposed to be). Frank, Parque, Wunsch, Eldred, etc all went down for the year.

jeremyb1
08-01-2004, 06:42 PM
So that means it's worthless. What's your basis for assuming any of these players would sign with us, just because we're offering them money? They're likely to attract numerous offers, so there's no guarantee we'd get any of them. Freddy Garcia is a done deal, I don't have to worry about that.

Haha. Unless you're in a really undesirable situation (a terrible team like the Expos or a bad location like Montreal) players tend to be willing to sign with you if you offer them as much as other teams are. It's not often (read never) that a team goes out there with 10 million and can't convince anyone to sign. Some teams like the Tigers last season might have to overpay. We're gnerally not one of those teams.

Wait a second, you just spent countless paragraphs telling me how great you think Olivo and Reed are because they're cheap, and now you're telling me you'd spent $15 M on a player with a .918 OPS when you have Aaron Rowand with a .913 making MUCH MUCH less? Granted, Beltran is a better player, but value-wise probably not. I'd like a little consistency from you.

And besides, don't you think that giving Beltran $15M is overpaying for a player who's never had a .950 OPS in his career?

Well the answer is that 1) Rowand and Beltran aren't mutually exclusive 2) I'm not willing to make the decision based on 300 PAs 3) Beltran's base running adds another dimension to his game. $15 million might be a bit steep but I think 9 million for Garcia is steep also. I think 15 million is overpaying but I think it's over paying less than spending the same amount of money on Garcia and Contreras. I'd rather have the 27 year old CF than the 28 year old starter but I think they're both good players I'd like to have on my club. I think it's better to have cheap home grown talent but we dont' have that kind of talent in our organization to fill every position that way.

If we don't trade for him, he goes to the Yankees, and signs a Vazquez type deal. We don't get him.

People just seem to be willing to say anything as fact to support their argument sometimes.

I wouldn't want those pitchers. Matt Clement is 29, Pavano 28, and Perez 27. Giving them long-term contracts would put us at risk for a decline in performance at the end of those deals. Nice to see you're basically willing to pull things out of your ass to hammer Kenny with on the Garcia deal, but overlook them otherwise.

I'm really glad you're finally getting it. I kept insisting over and over again that pitchers completely fall apart and never have another successful season once they turn 30. It seems like you finally started reading what I was writing.

Seriously, if you insinuate that I've argued that pitchers aren't any good once they turn 30 one more time I can't keep up this discussion because you're just obviously not reading what I'm saying. It was argued that Buehrle, Garcia, Garland form a good young core. I corrected the argument saying that at 29 Garcia is not young and most likely will not improve on or duplicate his best season from his prime (26-29). I stand by that argument. You have now twisted that argument into me saying that Garcia is a bad signing and will no longer be a good pitcher the day he turns 30 in three or four different posts despite the fact that I've told you several times that you're misrepresenting what I said!!! It's going to be very easy for you to "win the argument" if you make up or distort my arguments and then argue against them.

I'd love for you to go back and reread my posts and tell me what part of that argument contradicted what I wrote above and exactly what I'm pulling out of my ass.

jeremyb1
08-01-2004, 06:57 PM
:roflmao:

Wow, nice of you to not include two of Garcia's better years (2000 and 1999) while also excluding Vazquez's sub-par 2004. Pretty slick on your part. This comparison also doesn't mention the inner ear problems which could have caused Garcia's production to dip in 2002/2003 (edit).

Well I already have told you why I didn't include Vazquez's '04 stats. We were arguing about the value of each players contract and obviously Vazquez's 2004 performance didn't affect the amount of money the Yankees paid him in 2003. If you disagree with that or we're having a different argument than I thought we were, you oughta let me know.

Garcia was mediocre in '99 and '00. I didn't include those numbers because they were 5 or 6 seasons ago and don't seem to have much bearing on an extension signed this season. Typically a player's most recent seasons are the best predictors of future success and what teams look at the most in acquiring a player. I doubt KW would've paid the price he did or signed Garcia to the extension he did if not for the fact that he pitched so well this season. The most emphasis is placed on the most recent.

I think the inner ear infection argument is a load of crap. Would you have wanted to acquire Garcia in the offseason at the same price if I told you about his inner ear infection (which those in Seattle have argued definitively did not affect his performance)? Carlos Zambrano has a kink in his mechanics Peterson will fix, Jose Contreras couldn't handle NY and missed his family. These excuses are made for players all the time and they rarely hold up. Mike Hampton just needed to leave Coors...oops. Todd Ritchie just needed better run support...oops. If you look at Garcia's numbers in '00, '01, and '02 the only difference is really that he gave up twice as many home runs in '01 and '02. So let me get this straight, his inner ear condition didn't affect his ability to allow walks, or get strikeouts, but it affected his ability to prevent the long ball dramatically. Huh?!?!

And even with your numbers, Garcia's 2001 is better than Vazquez's 2000 and Garcia's 2004 is better than Vazquez 2003. So I don't understand how you can conclude he's "undeniably better." But I'm sure you'll try.

Maybe undeniably is over the top but I think he has a strong edge. Looking at singular seasons if a pretty poor way to look at it compared to totalling up the numbers. If Garcia had two seasons with ERAs of 3.51 and 5.89 and Vazquez had two with ERAs of 3.67 and 3.87 I don't think anyone in their right mind would say they're equal because Garcia was better one season and Vazquez the other.

Win1ForMe
08-01-2004, 10:04 PM
We were arguing about the value of each players contract and obviously Vazquez's 2004 performance didn't affect the amount of money the Yankees paid him in 2003.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :whatever:

We're arguing which pitcher is better. You said Vazquez was undeniably better, remember?

I think the inner ear infection argument is a load of crap.First of all, do you even have any idea what you're talking about? He had two ruptured eardrums that needed surgery. Not an inner ear infection.:rolleyes:

jeremyb1
08-01-2004, 11:38 PM
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :whatever:

We're arguing which pitcher is better. You said Vazquez was undeniably better, remember?

Well we were arguing in the context of contracts so which player is better after their contracts have been signed would seem to be completely irrelevant to me but I do feel that Vazquez is still better in light of his '04 season if that's what you feel is important.

First of all, do you even have any idea what you're talking about? He had two ruptured eardrums that needed surgery. Not an inner ear infection.:rolleyes:

I'd meant to type inner ear condition (your eardrum is in your inner ear, no?). Regardless, I don't see what that has to do with anything. Was that a convenient way of you disregarding all the points I made on the subject?

voodoochile
08-02-2004, 10:39 AM
I'd meant to type inner ear condition (your eardrum is in your inner ear, no?). Regardless, I don't see what that has to do with anything. Was that a convenient way of you disregarding all the points I made on the subject?

Ahhhh... a post right up my canal...

There are three parts to the ear...

Outer ear: That's what you see. It ends at the eardrum

Middle Ear: This is where the common bones we all know are located (anvil, stirrup - remember your biology?). This starts at the eardrum and ends at the tynpanum (sp?) which is what the anvil and stirrup and the rest of them common bones beat against to send sound waves into the

Inner Ear: the cochlea which is shaped like a conch shell. It is filled with liquid and lots of fine hairs that pick up sound waves and transmit them to the auditory nerve.

The middle ear is where infections occur and also where liquid collects that throws off balance and affects hearing temporarily until the liquid runs off. If you've ever blown your nose wrong and found yourself dizzy it's because you blew snot backwards. That kind of pressure makes it hard to stand, can cause headaches and loss of balance.

As I understand it that's what Freddy had problems with.

This is from memory from 8 years ago when I had my hearing loss, so if I am wrong, please correct me...

Railsplitter
08-02-2004, 11:25 AM
How do you define recent?

I believe the Sox went into August of 1991 in first place, got swept in Detroit, and went into a tailspin from there.

jackbrohamer
08-02-2004, 02:11 PM
How do you define recent?

I believe the Sox went into August of 1991 in first place, got swept in Detroit, and went into a tailspin from there.
What a disaster that was. Wilson Alvarez pitched a no-hitter near the start of the month then the team totally fell apart.