PDA

View Full Version : Neal Cotts


Pea-Pod
10-03-2004, 02:31 AM
I thought neal had huge potential because no one could catch up to his fastball; so if he could only throw ONE freakin breakin ball over the plate for a strike, he would be sick..............but then people have now adjusted to his fastball and he sucks hard.

SoxFan76
10-03-2004, 02:43 AM
I still have high hopes for Neal. Honestly, I don't know why he hasn't been in AAA these last couple years. He needs to learn another pitch, and he needs to be starting. He isn't going to be a career bullpen guy, like Arnie.

Pea-Pod
10-03-2004, 02:51 AM
ya totally, he needs another pitch . his fastball really jumps on batters, but they just sit on it when they see him throw sliders and curves at their necks. But if can control those pitches he could definitly be a 3rd or 4th starter

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-03-2004, 10:03 AM
I still have high hopes for Neal. Honestly, I don't know why he hasn't been in AAA these last couple years. He needs to learn another pitch, and he needs to be starting. He isn't going to be a career bullpen guy, like Arnie.What happened to Cotts this year was entirely Kenny Williams' fault.

He entered the season with only 4 starting pitchers (again). 2 of those 4 (Garland and Schoenweiss) were huge question marks that ultimately turned out bad. Garland is in no way a 3 and Schoenweiss had no business starting anywhere in the major leagues. Wright obviously is not a major league pitcher either. So that forced him to bring up Cotts too early and expose him to major league hitting now rather than next year or, better yet, the year after that. The damage to Cotts may be irreperable.

It would be nice to have a GM who recognized the importance of having 5 proven major league starting pitchers for once. Then Cotts, Adkins, Munoz and Diaz would all be where the belong for another 2 years - AAA.

chisoxt
10-03-2004, 10:40 AM
Neal Cotts wasted a year pitching for the Sox when he should have been in the minor learning another pitch. I see no improvement in his performance next year because of that oversight.

Lip Man 1
10-03-2004, 12:00 PM
Remember with the Sox, the rush to bring up untested youngsters who don't know what they are doing is because, in part, they are always looking for instant gratification on the deals they have made.

They are always 'hoping' one of two kids come through to take some of the pressure off the front office and to hopefully spur the team to win something.

Unfortunately 'hope' doesn't very often get the job done. Talent, brains and money does.

Lip

Tragg
10-03-2004, 01:23 PM
I don't agree- the bullpen is a good place to learn after some time in AAA; it involves different pressures and different situations. After improving in long relief, a pitcher than be put into a major league rotation.

I think it's a stretch to suggest he could have learned more in AAA. It's also a stretch to suggest he was "Rushed"----he had one start and the rest primarily long relief---that's good education, not being rushed. Ozzie worked very closely with Cotts. Now maybe the major league club would have been better with him in AAA, but his development was hardly stunted.

Pea-Pod
10-03-2004, 01:30 PM
also, neal came up for a few starts the year before.

santo=dorf
10-03-2004, 01:38 PM
What happened to Cotts this year was entirely Kenny Williams' fault.

He entered the season with only 4 starting pitchers (again). 2 of those 4 (Garland and Schoenweiss) were huge question marks that ultimately turned out bad. Garland is in no way a 3 and Schoenweiss had no business starting anywhere in the major leagues. Wright obviously is not a major league pitcher either. So that forced him to bring up Cotts too early and expose him to major league hitting now rather than next year or, better yet, the year after that. The damage to Cotts may be irreperable.

It would be nice to have a GM who recognized the importance of having 5 proven major league starting pitchers for once. Then Cotts, Adkins, Munoz and Diaz would all be where the belong for another 2 years - AAA.
Schoeneweis's record at the end of May: 5-2, 3.64 ERA. Then he got hurt and was never the same.

Garland's record before getting destroyed by Philly on 6/9: 5-2. 3.79 ERA.
Garland and Schoeneweis were quality pitchers when this team was competing.

Cotts made the team out of spring training being used in a bullpen role. Before his start in Minnesota back on 5/22, he had a 2.45 ERA in 12 appearances. It was Guillen's decision to put Cotts in the bullpen before the start of the season, it was Cooper's idea to start him against the Twins, and Ozzie continued to misuse his bullpen causing Cotts to inflate his numbers.

Danny Wright had an impressive Spring Training, but tried to pitch through injuries that costed him this season and next's.

But who says facts are important?

This "totally-biased" KW bashing is getting ridiculous. What did the Mets' starting rotation look like coming into this season? They had Matt Ginter as their fifth starter! LMAO!

:whoflungpoo

shagar69
10-03-2004, 01:44 PM
Schoeneweis's record at the end of May: 5-2, 3.64 ERA. Then he got hurt and was never the same.

Garland's record before getting destroyed by Philly on 6/9: 5-2. 3.79 ERA.
Garland and Schoeneweis were quality pitchers when this team was competing.

Cotts made the team out of spring training being used in a bullpen role. Before his start in Minnesota back on 5/22, he had a 2.45 ERA in 12 appearances. It was Guillen's decision to put Cotts in the bullpen before the start of the season, it was Cooper's idea to start him against the Twins, and Ozzie continued to misuse his bullpen causing Cotts to inflate his numbers.

Danny Wright had an impressive Spring Training, but tried to pitch through injuries that costed him this season and next's.

But who says facts are important?

This "totally-biased" KW bashing is getting ridiculous. What did the Mets' starting rotation look like coming into this season? They had Matt Ginter as their fifth starter! LMAO!

:whoflungpoo
why do you keep comparing us to the mets? they are one of the dumbest franchises in sports! they spend money on garbage players, and end up finishing 4th with a 100 mil+ payroll!

santo=dorf
10-03-2004, 01:48 PM
why do you keep comparing us to the mets? they are one of the dumbest franchises in sports! they spend money on garbage players, and end up finishing 4th with a 100 mil+ payroll!
The poster is the one who suggested hiring Jim Duquette for our GM.

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-03-2004, 03:23 PM
Schoeneweis's record at the end of May: 5-2, 3.64 ERA. Then he got hurt and was never the same.

Garland's record before getting destroyed by Philly on 6/9: 5-2. 3.79 ERA.
Garland and Schoeneweis were quality pitchers when this team was competing.

Cotts made the team out of spring training being used in a bullpen role. Before his start in Minnesota back on 5/22, he had a 2.45 ERA in 12 appearances. It was Guillen's decision to put Cotts in the bullpen before the start of the season, it was Cooper's idea to start him against the Twins, and Ozzie continued to misuse his bullpen causing Cotts to inflate his numbers.

Danny Wright had an impressive Spring Training, but tried to pitch through injuries that costed him this season and next's.

But who says facts are important?

This "totally-biased" KW bashing is getting ridiculous. What did the Mets' starting rotation look like coming into this season? They had Matt Ginter as their fifth starter! LMAO!

:whoflungpooI just want to make sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Garland, Schoenweiss and Wright were good choices for a major league team as their #s 3,4 and 5? Are you actually saying that? Really? Why? Because Garland and Schoenweiss had a good month and a half? Wright has stunk since day one - who gives a crap about spring training.

Garland, Schoenweiss and Wright wouldn't have been a 3,4 and 5 for ANY other team in the majors.

And I know Cotts made the team out of spring training. My point was, at best, Schoenweiss should have been in the bullpen, like he was for Anaheim and Cotts should have been in AAA. But because Kenny had a crappy starting staff, Scho was in the rotation and Cotts was in the bullpen.

Talk about facts. Try looking at an entire season before you make excuses for guys who can't perform. What does a good month and a half have to do with anything?

santo=dorf
10-03-2004, 04:26 PM
I must've forgotten that 2 months is only 1/3 of the season.

Garland is in no way a 3 and Schoenweiss had no business starting anywhere in the major leagues. Wright obviously is not a major league pitcher either.
Their stats from the first two months of the season say otherwise. Schoeneweis got hurt after that which is why he "ultimately turned out bad." You brought up the mental part of pitching when you were talking about Cotts. Something happened to Garland mentally after May. I agree with you that he doesn't belong in the #3 spot, but it was hard to argue against that with the numbers he was putting for the first 2 months of the season.

If Schoeneweis was placed in the bullpen, who do you put in the rotation that will give you numbers that where either similar or even better than Scott's?

So that forced him to bring up Cotts too early and expose him to major league hitting now rather than next year or, better yet, the year after that.

And I know Cotts made the team out of spring training.
You seem to be flip-flopping right there. (insert your own political joke here)

Cotts was facing "major league hitting" because he was on the major league roster in April, therefore the Sox never had the chance to "bring up" Cotts.


AND......
What did Jim Duquette's 100 million dollar payroll team's rotation look like coming into this year?

CarlosMay'sThumb
10-03-2004, 04:56 PM
I must've forgotten that 2 months is only 1/3 of the season.


Their stats from the first two months of the season say otherwise. Schoeneweis got hurt after that which is why he "ultimately turned out bad." You brought up the mental part of pitching when you were talking about Cotts. Something happened to Garland mentally after May. I agree with you that he doesn't belong in the #3 spot, but it was hard to argue against that with the numbers he was putting for the first 2 months of the season.

If Schoeneweis was placed in the bullpen, who do you put in the rotation that will give you numbers that where either similar or even better than Scott's?




You seem to be flip-flopping right there. (insert your own political joke here)

Cotts was facing "major league hitting" because he was on the major league roster in April, therefore the Sox never had the chance to "bring up" Cotts.


AND......
What did Jim Duquette's 100 million dollar payroll team's rotation look like coming into this year?

I think you need to look at an entire season rather than 2 months. Garland entire season the year before suggested that he didn't belong in the 3 hole. KW made a mistake putting him there - the 2004 season proves that (not just April and May). Scho had been demoted by the Angels as a starter for a reason the year before. A spot starter in 2004 out of the pen maybe, but a #4? No way. Wright had proven during the 2 previous years that he was bad - just bad. He had no business being in a major league uniform, let alone a starter.

I meant that Cotts was "brought up" with the major league club at the start of the season rather than "sent down" with the minor league team after spring training. If the Sox had a decent starting staff, Scho would have been the lefty in the pen and Cotts would have been in the minors where he belonged. He was "brought up" because the starting staff was poor.

As far as Duquette, I only said that JR should interview him. Right now, I'd interview anybody to find somebody to replace Williams.

Mohoney
10-04-2004, 06:57 PM
After improving in long relief, a pitcher than be put into a major league rotation.
That's all fine and good, but Neal Cotts was used in late innings. In pressure situations. He's not a Major League-caliber pitcher yet, and he put up atrocious numbers and cost us games.

The thing that gets me is that this organization calls his 2004 performance a "bright spot".

PavanoBeltran'05
10-04-2004, 07:11 PM
I just want to make sure I understand your point. Are you saying that Garland, Schoenweiss and Wright were good choices for a major league team as their #s 3,4 and 5? Are you actually saying that? Really? Why? Because Garland and Schoenweiss had a good month and a half? Wright has stunk since day one - who gives a crap about spring training.

Garland, Schoenweiss and Wright wouldn't have been a 3,4 and 5 for ANY other team in the majors.

And I know Cotts made the team out of spring training. My point was, at best, Schoenweiss should have been in the bullpen, like he was for Anaheim and Cotts should have been in AAA. But because Kenny had a crappy starting staff, Scho was in the rotation and Cotts was in the bullpen.

Talk about facts. Try looking at an entire season before you make excuses for guys who can't perform. What does a good month and a half have to do with anything? This whole debate about our 3,4, and 5 pitchers are a clear indicator that this team wasn't built to actually contend this year. This was supposed to be a bridge year, and it panned out that way. We were supposed to just throw something out there and try to get the best out of it. Our boys were just dumb enough to play well for a while and give us a lot of hope.
Now, Ozzie knows that Garland isn't a 3 or a 4 for that matter. Shoeney is gone. Wright? Puhhhhlease.
The fans showed that they're going to fill the seats if we contend. The new regime (as far as coaching) is in place. I think that we did okay for having the staff that we had. What we ended up doing, however, is play well enough for the organization to pick up some good pitchers to take us beyond that bridge year and into the future. I think Garcia and Contreras' best days are ahead. Without playing as well as we did, we wouldn't have gotten either.
Loaiza wouldn't have had the wins he would've without our guys putting up numbers to back him. That got us Contreras right before Loaiza s*** the bed.
So, now we're looking at the team with three slots filled instead of two in the starting rotation. Now, if we get another guy in the rotation (PLEASE God, PAVANO!!!), we'll be in good shape. Something less wouldn't be horrible, either.

PavanoBeltran'05
10-04-2004, 07:14 PM
As far as Cotts goes, I believe that he's got a place, and the experience he picked up will help him. He would be very well served to pick up a good change or to develop that curveball. Hopefully he can get it worked on during the offseason. Santana actually picked up the change over an offseason, and Cotts has enough experience now to know hitters' tendencies, so we can only hope for the best for him.

gosox41
10-05-2004, 08:12 AM
That's all fine and good, but Neal Cotts was used in late innings. In pressure situations. He's not a Major League-caliber pitcher yet, and he put up atrocious numbers and cost us games.

The thing that gets me is that this organization calls his 2004 performance a "bright spot".

The problem with Cotts is he walks too many guys. I mentioned this back in spring training but was assured that his 2003 problems were purely mechanical. Maybe that one bad start against the Yankees was mechanical. But he still has control problems.


Bob

Mohoney
10-05-2004, 01:33 PM
The problem with Cotts is he walks too many guys. I mentioned this back in spring training but was assured that his 2003 problems were purely mechanical. Maybe that one bad start against the Yankees was mechanical. But he still has control problems.


Bob
He also serves up his fair share of dingers. He also lets inherited runners score rather frequently.

It's not just the walks. He's not ready for the big leagues yet, plain and simple.