PDA

View Full Version : Derek Lowe Solves White Sox Problems


OG4LIFE
11-17-2004, 07:29 PM
you've gotta love derek lowe. here's why:

he gets up for BIG GAMES (relief vs A's 2003 div series, this past playoffs)
Ground Ball Pitcher (perfect for Comiskular)
as a FA signing, would complete our rotation instead of trading for RJ and still leaving the gaping hole that has killed us forever
Can be had for about 4-6 mil a year

ok so one negative, being a borASS client, he will probably be priced out of our range (8 mil/yr?)...

but who else wants to start a grassroots effort to bring derek lowe to the sox??

hold2dibber
11-17-2004, 07:37 PM
you've gotta love derek lowe. here's why:

he gets up for BIG GAMES (relief vs A's 2003 div series, this past playoffs)
Ground Ball Pitcher (perfect for Comiskular)
as a FA signing, would complete our rotation instead of trading for RJ and still leaving the gaping hole that has killed us forever
Can be had for about 4-6 mil a year

ok so one negative, being a borASS client, he will probably be priced out of our range (8 mil/yr?)...

but who else wants to start a grassroots effort to bring derek lowe to the sox??
Ugh. I posted this elsewhere, but I guess it applies here as well:

Player A: 4.89 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, 4.69 K/9, 217 IP, 223 H, 113 Ks, .269 BAA
Player B: 5.42 ERA, 1.61 WHIP, 5.17 K/9, 182.2 IP, 224 H (!), 105 K, .299 BAA

Player A is 6 years younger and probably will cost about 1/2 of what Player B will cost. Player A, of course, is Garland and Player B is Lowe. On the off hand chance the Sox could get Lowe for dirt cheap (e.g., $3 million/year for 2 years), I'd stick him at the back of the rotation and keep searching for a top/middle of the rotation guy. Otherwise, no thanks. He ain't the answer. Other starting pitcher free agents I'd much rather have (just off the top of my head) include Leiber, Radke, Milwood, O. Perez, David Wells, Leiter or Clement.

Foulke You
11-17-2004, 08:42 PM
I'll take Randy Johnson and (insert #5 starter here) over Derek Lowe and marshmallow boy Jon Garland any day of the week.

Lip Man 1
11-17-2004, 08:46 PM
Derek Lowe's agent is Scott Boras.

Ken Williams already publicly stated what the Sox relationship is regarding Boras' players.

End of discussion.

Lip

Win1ForMe
11-17-2004, 09:54 PM
Derek Lowe's agent is Scott Boras.

Ken Williams already publicly stated what the Sox relationship is regarding Boras' players.

End of discussion.

Lip
Thanks for keeping things in perspective, as usual, Lip.

OG4LIFE
11-17-2004, 09:56 PM
[QUOTE=hold2dibber]Ugh. I posted this elsewhere, but I guess it applies here as well:

Player A: 4.89 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, 4.69 K/9, 217 IP, 223 H, 113 Ks, .269 BAA
Player B: 5.42 ERA, 1.61 WHIP, 5.17 K/9, 182.2 IP, 224 H (!), 105 K, .299 BAA

QUOTE]

ok, lets look at player B's (LOWE) career numbers

3.88 ERA 1.30 Whip 5.88 K/9, over 200 innings 2/3 years as a starter, .259 BAA,

and the big number: .66 HR / 9

aaand player A's (JUDY) last 3 years (easily his best so far)
4.68 ERA 1.44 WHIP 4.97 K/9 .268 BAA, over 200 innings 1/ last 3 years
and
1.26 HR / 9

player b is 6 years older, but still has about 4-6 years of baseball left in him (HE'S 31, not too much to worry about there), well within the 3 year time frame we generally sign pitchers for.

if lowe can be had at the price Lip suggested, i think he would be the best solution, and we wouldnt have to give up garland and konerko for RJ...

or possibly trade garland/konerko for RJ and then sign lowe...


i don't care what KW has said about not dealing with Boras at all. the boss (JR) said that dealing with boras is not out of the question (as quoted on this board from his radio interview with Mike North)... and at the right price, i think he could be had. i just think it would be esp. useful to have a ground ball pitcher at the cell, proven in the postseason, a proven 'grinder'...

jabrch
11-17-2004, 10:30 PM
I'll take Randy Johnson and (insert #5 starter here) over Derek Lowe and marshmallow boy Jon Garland any day of the week.


I have seen (insert #5 starter here) for a few years now. He's no good. I'd much rather have Lowe, Garland and more money available to address other positions than have RJ and an blank again.

CubKilla
11-17-2004, 10:40 PM
Thanks for keeping things in perspective, as usual, Lip.
The truth hurts and it's ugly too

Lip Man 1
11-17-2004, 11:06 PM
Win 1:

I don't know what was wrong with my stating what Williams HAD ALREADY SAID. You have a problem...try asking Kenny why he won't deal with Boras' clients.

Don't shoot the messenger my friend. I'm not the cause of the Sox mediocrity.

Lip

Giallo
11-17-2004, 11:12 PM
Why not just sign Lieber? He'll likely be cheaper than Lowe, and I guarantee he will be more productive over the next couple years. Lowe has always been terribly inconsistent and overrated. Lieber has been the opposite, consistent and underrated. He'd be a good fit for the Sox (and someone they could probably afford).

Jabroni
11-17-2004, 11:14 PM
Why not just sign Lieber? He'll likely be cheaper than Lowe, and I guarantee he will be more productive over the next couple years. Lowe has always been terribly inconsistent and overrated. Lieber has been the opposite, consistent and underrated. He'd be a good fit for the Sox (and someone they could probably afford).Agreed. Lieber could perform just as well if not better than Lowe and he would most likely be much cheaper.

MRKARNO
11-17-2004, 11:26 PM
Derek Lowe's agent is Scott Boras.

Ken Williams already publicly stated what the Sox relationship is regarding Boras' players.

End of discussion.

Lip
I dont think that it's necessarily the end of the discussion. I think Kenny has probably already bided on some of Boras's clients, but Boras's price is way too high. Boras's price might be too high for everyone with certain clients, Lowe potentially being one of them, where he will be forced to agree to realistic terms or be left without a contract.

Foulke You
11-17-2004, 11:33 PM
I have seen (insert #5 starter here) for a few years now. He's no good. I'd much rather have Lowe, Garland and more money available to address other positions than have RJ and an blank again.
Yes, but you have not seen that 6' 10 guy who wears #51...what's his name? Oh yeah, RANDY JOHNSON anchor the Sox pitching staff have you? Didn't think so. There is a huge difference between not having a #5 but having a 1-2-3 of RJ, Buehrle, and Garcia and what we had last year.

Flight #24
11-17-2004, 11:47 PM
Win 1:

I don't know what was wrong with my stating what Williams HAD ALREADY SAID. You have a problem...try asking Kenny why he won't deal with Boras' clients.

Don't shoot the messenger my friend. I'm not the cause of the Sox mediocrity.

LipMaybe YOU should show where KW actually said that. And Moronotti's interpretations don't count. As posted in the other thread where this tripe was repeated, check the quote.

For the lazy, from the Trib "I do not expect to sign any Scott Boras clients," White Sox general manager Ken Williams said Monday.

Why?

"Let's just say that we both respectfully agree to disagree on the value of his players," Williams replied.Not "I won't negotiate with Boras", not even "I won't keep making offers on his players". There have been comments from other GMs that asking prices are pretty high and they expect them to come down, especially as nontendered FAs hit the market. If that happens (and it's not unlikely), the differing "value" could easily decrease or disappear.

jake27
11-18-2004, 01:56 AM
Player A: 4.89 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, 4.69 K/9, 217 IP, 223 H, 113 Ks, .269 BAA
Player B: 5.42 ERA, 1.61 WHIP, 5.17 K/9, 182.2 IP, 224 H (!), 105 K, .299 BAA


kind of a side note, but i love when you do those "player a" and Player b", etc etc things then i look and see hwo the players actually are. yeah thats it. and lowe would b nice to have, veen if its just int he bullpen.

JRIG
11-18-2004, 04:59 AM
you've gotta love (http://www.adsrve.com/linkredirect.php?h=10,40629057,whitesoxinteractive .com,0) derek lowe. here's why:

he gets up for BIG GAMES (relief vs A's 2003 div series, this past playoffs)
Ground Ball Pitcher (perfect for Comiskular)
as a FA signing, would complete our rotation instead of trading for RJ and still leaving the gaping hole that has killed us forever
Can be had for about 4-6 mil a year

ok so one negative, being a borASS client, he will probably be priced out of our range (8 mil/yr?)...

but who else wants to start a grassroots effort to bring derek lowe to the sox??Derek Lowe can get on base at close to a .380 clip? Because that is the biggest problem facing the team right now.

ilsox7
11-18-2004, 05:35 AM
If Lowe gets anything close to $8MM a year that's pathetic. I could be wrong but I just don't see him being anything more than a #4, maybe a #3 if he picks it up some. As for getting up for "BIG" games, well we would have to get to those big games in the first place. And without guys getting on base, that isn't going to happen. If KW can get RJ, awesome. Otherwise, don;t spend $7 or $8MM on a middle/bottom of the rotation guy...spend it on a guy ho can get on base, as JRIG pointed out.

If the Sox do sign Lowe, I hope I am wrong and will be the first one to admit it...just don't see it happening though (signing him or being a #2 quality pitcher).

SOXSINCE'70
11-18-2004, 08:11 AM
Derek Lowe's agent is Scott Boras.

Ken Williams already publicly stated what the Sox relationship is regarding Boras' players.

End of discussion.

Lip
I read in the Scum Times today that Reinsdork said he
would negotiate with a Bora$ client if "the price is right".

Bob Barker,meet your replacement!! Jermaine Dye,
come on down!! You're our next contestant!!:mad: :mad:

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 10:37 AM
Ugh. I posted this elsewhere, but I guess it applies here as well:

Player A: 4.89 ERA, 1.38 WHIP, 4.69 K/9, 217 IP, 223 H, 113 Ks, .269 BAA
Player B: 5.42 ERA, 1.61 WHIP, 5.17 K/9, 182.2 IP, 224 H (!), 105 K, .299 BAA

Player A is 6 years younger and probably will cost about 1/2 of what Player B will cost. Player A, of course, is Garland and Player B is Lowe. On the off hand chance the Sox could get Lowe for dirt cheap (e.g., $3 million/year for 2 years), I'd stick him at the back of the rotation and keep searching for a top/middle of the rotation guy. Otherwise, no thanks. He ain't the answer. Other starting pitcher free agents I'd much rather have (just off the top of my head) include Leiber, Radke, Milwood, O. Perez, David Wells, Leiter or Clement.It's even worse than that. Looking at Lowe's career numbers masks the underlying trend, which is in the wrong direction. He had one outstanding year in 2002, a mediocre year in 2003 and just sucked in 2004. Anyone want to extrapolate that trend to 2005?

mjharrison72
11-18-2004, 10:41 AM
The other thing that wouldn't necessarily make Lowe a great fit is we haven't made the improvements/upgrades in our infield defense this year that we've been talking about. If you have a ground ball pitcher, you have to have a lights-out infield, and that's something the Sox definitely don't have as of now. Lowe gave up tons of unearned runs, even with the Red Sox, so I don't really think he's the solution.

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 10:51 AM
The other thing that wouldn't necessarily make Lowe a great fit is we haven't made the improvements/upgrades in our infield defense this year that we've been talking about. If you have a ground ball pitcher, you have to have a lights-out infield, and that's something the Sox definitely don't have as of now. Lowe gave up tons of unearned runs, even with the Red Sox, so I don't really think he's the solution.With Jose gone, there's nothing wrong with the Sox IF defense.

kittle42
11-18-2004, 10:59 AM
Maybe YOU should show where KW actually said that. And Moronotti's interpretations don't count. As posted in the other thread where this tripe was repeated, check the quote.

For the lazy, from the Trib Not "I won't negotiate with Boras", not even "I won't keep making offers on his players". There have been comments from other GMs that asking prices are pretty high and they expect them to come down, especially as nontendered FAs hit the market. If that happens (and it's not unlikely), the differing "value" could easily decrease or disappear.
Omigawd. Some people here really just can't face reality. Go ahead, blast me and continue on with your delusions of grandeur.

NonetheLoaiza
11-18-2004, 11:16 AM
even if KW had said "I will not negotiate with Boras' clients", do you honestly think thats the end of it? I hardly think so. The public knows about 1% of what goes on between GMs and agents. Anything can happen in these negotiations. Making all of that information public is just a game.

wdelaney72
11-18-2004, 11:18 AM
I like Derek Lowe. His style of pitching is a good fit for USCF. Unfortunately, his dominance in the playoffs will result in some team overpaying for him.

Flight #24
11-18-2004, 11:25 AM
Omigawd. Some people here really just can't face reality. Go ahead, blast me and continue on with your delusions of grandeur.
Check today's ST for JR's comments on KW's comments & the media interpretation. Directly contradicts the Moronotti interpretation, but don't let that impact your opinion or anything.

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 11:38 AM
Check today's ST for JR's comments on KW's comments & the media interpretation. Directly contradicts the Moronotti interpretation, but don't let that impact your opinion or anything.You don't suppose Moronotti could be SLANTING his interpretation, do you?

mjharrison72
11-18-2004, 11:44 AM
With Jose gone, there's nothing wrong with the Sox IF defense.Then why the big push to bring Vizquel when he was available? You obviously have more faith in Uribe and Harris than I do. And Crede.
Listen, I like Derek Lowe; I just think he's more of a headcase than the average pitcher, and that has translated into inconsistency in the past. Is he better than Garland? Probably, but I would rather not drop the money he'll be asking for.

gosox41
11-18-2004, 11:46 AM
You don't suppose Moronotti could be SLANTING his interpretation, do you?
You mean Jay Marriotti might have a personal vandetta against the Sox and will use his radio show and newspaper gig to broadcast it to any fool who will listed???



Bob

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 11:52 AM
Then why the big push to bring Vizquel when he was available? You obviously have more faith in Uribe and Harris than I do. And Crede.
Listen, I like Derek Lowe; I just think he's more of a headcase than the average pitcher, and that has translated into inconsistency in the past. Is he better than Garland? Probably, but I would rather not drop the money he'll be asking for.I was against the Vizquel deal. But I don't think it was being planned for defensive reasons. Defensively, Crede-Uribe-Harris is perhaps not a gold glove IF, but is certainly solid. Any doubts the Sox brass have about them has more to do with their offensive production.

And I wouldn't want Lowe even if the had an all Gold Glove IF.

OG4LIFE
11-18-2004, 12:21 PM
ok, some lowe lovers, some lowe haters...


basically, i started this thread based on this premise: that a full rotation of SP's in the 6-9mil range is better than a top heavy rotation both in terms of salary and talent. with a solid rotation of #2 and #3 starters, you have a chance to win every single night out. with top heavy rotations, you have a damn good chance to win when your #1,#2 and (hopefully) your #3 pitch, but when #4 and 5 come up, you're just praying you don't get blown out (arnie munoz vs the expos, anyone?)

yea, having a big time stud in the rotation is sexy, its fun to talk about, its a bragging point. but what is more effective? maybe its just the nightmares of the last few years in the back end of our rotation, but ill take 5 solid guys and beat you 4/7, 5/7 days of the week.

thoughts?

Flight #24
11-18-2004, 12:25 PM
ok, some lowe lovers, some lowe haters...


basically, i started this thread based on this premise: that a full rotation of SP's in the 6-9mil range is better than a top heavy rotation both in terms of salary and talent. with a solid rotation of #2 and #3 starters, you have a chance to win every single night out. with top heavy rotations, you have a damn good chance to win when your #1,#2 and (hopefully) your #3 pitch, but when #4 and 5 come up, you're just praying you don't get blown out (arnie munoz vs the expos, anyone?)

yea, having a big time stud in the rotation is sexy, its fun to talk about, its a bragging point. but what is more effective? maybe its just the nightmares of the last few years in the back end of our rotation, but ill take 5 solid guys and beat you 4/7, 5/7 days of the week.

thoughts?
The tradeoff is effectively Garland+Lowe v. RJ+Grilli. Assuming Garland-12 & Lowe-15, you have 27 wins. I'd bet RJ+Grilli gets you at least that many, and you'd almost guarantee no long losing streaks because you'd have a true stopper. Plus, in any big game you'd have the ability to pitch arguably the most dominant pitcher in baseball.

OG4LIFE
11-18-2004, 12:33 PM
The tradeoff is effectively Garland+Lowe v. RJ+Grilli. Assuming Garland-12 & Lowe-15, you have 27 wins. I'd bet RJ+Grilli gets you at least that many, and you'd almost guarantee no long losing streaks because you'd have a true stopper. Plus, in any big game you'd have the ability to pitch arguably the most dominant pitcher in baseball.
good point flight, i like that. my only objection, is i would say that i would be more sure of lowe's and garland's (garland could get better, maybe....) wins, as opposed to RJ's (ok, he's effective/dominant, but old, and his injury history is a little more checkered than lowe's), and Grili's (do you really want to bet on this guy winning 10 games? i wouldnt) win combination.

and, lets put ourselves in position to get to the playoffs first, then worry about advancing (mid-season moves to fill holes/acquire stud starters).

Ol' No. 2
11-18-2004, 12:56 PM
The tradeoff is effectively Garland+Lowe v. RJ+Grilli. Assuming Garland-12 & Lowe-15, you have 27 wins. I'd bet RJ+Grilli gets you at least that many, and you'd almost guarantee no long losing streaks because you'd have a true stopper. Plus, in any big game you'd have the ability to pitch arguably the most dominant pitcher in baseball.Good point. Remember, you have to beat your main rival in the division. Lining the rotation up to have Johnson, Garcia and Buehrle to face the Twins gives you a lot better chance.

SouthSide_HitMen
11-19-2004, 03:00 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1922717

In case you were wondering
Value Over Replacement Player for free agent starters
(Source: Baseball Prospectus)
Pavano 62.4
Clemens 61.3
Radke 60.1
Pedro Martinez 51.2
Odalis Perez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6088) 49.7
Al Leiter (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4130) 46.2
Jaret Wright (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5839) 40.3
David Wells (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4057) 40.3
Clement 36.9
Russ Ortiz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5954) 33.1
Orlando Hernandez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6019) 27.6
Lieber 27.7
Ramon Ortiz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6317) 24.6
Derek Lowe (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5801) -11.6

FightingBillini
11-19-2004, 03:17 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1922717

In case you were wondering
Value Over Replacement Player for free agent starters
(Source: Baseball Prospectus)
Pavano 62.4
Clemens 61.3
Radke 60.1
Pedro Martinez 51.2
Odalis Perez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6088) 49.7
Al Leiter (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4130) 46.2
Jaret Wright (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5839) 40.3
David Wells (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4057) 40.3
Clement 36.9
Russ Ortiz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5954) 33.1
Orlando Hernandez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6019) 27.6
Lieber 27.7
Ramon Ortiz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6317) 24.6
Derek Lowe (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5801) -11.6
Haha, you know you suck when you get a negative. Seriously though, Radke shouldnt be as high as he is. I cant value any ranking system that put Pavano ahead of Clemens.

Mohoney
11-19-2004, 03:36 AM
If you have a ground ball pitcher, you have to have a lights-out infield, As opposed to a bona fide strikeout pitcher in Johnson, who takes about 10-12 balls out of play per game. All you have to do is not drop strike three.

It's a LOT easier to make 17 put-outs than 24, which is another thing that Johnson has over the headcase he would be replacing in Garland.

There are many very "efficient" pitchers available via free agency, but very few that I would call "dominant". When a guy that completely dominates hitters becomes available in a trade, you have to grab him and worry about the rest of the pieces later.

If the payroll is truly being bumped up to $75 million, we could still grab a journeyman guy to compete with Contreras for the 4th starter slot. Hell, I would even take my chances on Loaiza as my 5th starter if he gets no offers.

Mohoney
11-19-2004, 03:43 AM
and, lets put ourselves in position to get to the playoffs first, then worry about advancing (mid-season moves to fill holes/acquire stud starters).
Filling 40% of our rotation with complete squirrel turds doesn't exactly strike me as "putting ourselves in position to get to the playoffs".

OG4LIFE
11-19-2004, 09:57 AM
Filling 40% of our rotation with complete squirrel turds doesn't exactly strike me as "putting ourselves in position to get to the playoffs".
are you talking about the #4 and #5 spots in our rotation the last few years??

derek lowe @ 6 mil yr >>>>>>>>> our usual #5 starter circus

derek lowe!!! > jon garland

also, where the hell does all this 'derek lowe is a headcase' stuff come from... examples? i've read about it, it seems like one guy said it and everyone jumped on that bandwagon. judging by his postseason performances (where you'd think a headcase would struggle the most), i'd say he's DEFINITELY NOT a headcase.

Ol' No. 2
11-19-2004, 10:33 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/gammons/story?id=1922717

In case you were wondering
Value Over Replacement Player for free agent starters
(Source: Baseball Prospectus)
Pavano 62.4
Clemens 61.3
Radke 60.1
Pedro Martinez 51.2
Odalis Perez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6088) 49.7
Al Leiter (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4130) 46.2
Jaret Wright (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5839) 40.3
David Wells (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4057) 40.3
Clement 36.9
Russ Ortiz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5954) 33.1
Orlando Hernandez (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6019) 27.6
Lieber 27.7
Ramon Ortiz (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6317) 24.6
Derek Lowe (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5801) -11.6These look like all 2004 numbers. Unfortunately, some of these guys put up career years in 2004, so to pay them based on their 2004 numbers almost guarantees you're going to not get what you pay for.

OG4LIFE
11-19-2004, 11:20 AM
These look like all 2004 numbers. Unfortunately, some of these guys put up career years in 2004, so to pay them based on their 2004 numbers almost guarantees you're going to not get what you pay for.
exactly- and Derek Lowe went in the tank in 2004. i wouldn't expect him to replicate that, i would bet he's be closer to his career #'s, posted above on this thread.

Ol' No. 2
11-19-2004, 11:23 AM
exactly- and Derek Lowe went in the tank in 2004. i wouldn't expect him to replicate that, i would bet he's be closer to his career #'s, posted above on this thread.Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Derek Lowe had one good year in 2002. He's pretty much blown chunks since then.

hold2dibber
11-19-2004, 11:25 AM
Derek Lowe went in the tank in 2004. i wouldn't expect him to replicate that, i would bet he's be closer to his career #'s, posted above on this thread.
Why? He's gotten progressively worse over the last three years and he's on the over side of 30. He might, maybe, could rebound, but on the Sox limited budget, but if the asking price is $5 or $6 million, the Sox would be much wiser to spend that money elsewhere.