PDA

View Full Version : Please, talk me down from this offseason bridge...


mweflen
12-20-2004, 11:25 AM
Am I alone in being depressed about our prospects?

After the trade, I was uneasy, but flush with the prospect of signing some strong pitching, and possibly contending in 2005. I nervously laughed off Kenny's suggestion that the extra money might come in handy around June to do some tinkering. "Heh heh (nervous laugh)... of course you're just toying with us Kenny.... of course you wouldn't raise prices while cutting payroll and stick Grilli or (must... control... involuntary.... retching...) Schoeneweis in the 5-spot!"

And now, Clement will be going to the BoSox, while Perez seems to have been offered arbitration by the Dodgers.

Which leaves me in a very tenuous emotional spot as a Sox fan. Here we have lost two 100-RBI men and one 30 HR man from our lineup. A third 100 RBI man is questionable. We've added Dye, an 80-RBI injury threat, and Podsednik, a mercurial question mark with little to no pop. Neither of our catchers is a threat to break .230 over a full season. We enter the season with another 10 loss hole looming in our rotation, an enigmatic but "talented" sub-.500 pitcher, and a headcase from Cuba who doesn't like to throw his fastball.

Is there any reason for hope? Derek Lowe? A.J. Pierzynski?

Stop me before I jump!!!
:thud:

VenturaFan23
12-20-2004, 11:33 AM
How big is that bridge? Because I'm sure you'll have a lot more company up there including myself:D:

SilverAndBlack
12-20-2004, 11:35 AM
*grabs popcorn and waits for the entertainment*

MeanFish
12-20-2004, 11:39 AM
You put FAR too much value into RBI's.

Runs batted in is a neat statistic, but it's not one you can use as a barometer for how good a hitter is. I'm not going to try to tell you that Scott Podsednik and Jermaine Dye are on par with how good Magglio and Carlos are, but Scott gives us the potential for a real top-of-the-order threat (which neither Carlos or Magglio were) and Jermaine is moving from pitcher-friendly Network Associates Coliseum to hitter-friendly U.S. Cellular Field. So, while we've lost two of our best hitters we haven't replaced them with nothing.

As for Valentin, no team needs 30 HR if it's attached to a .210 batting average. That's exactly the kind of thing we DON'T need in our lineup. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we're worse offensively, it really isn't by as much as people are making it out to be. Our pitching is much better entering this season than it was entering last. Certainly enough to outweigh differences on offense.

Our offense still has the ability to knock about 200 dingers this upcoming season, and we're better defensively, and we've improved on pitching from any point last season.

CubKilla
12-20-2004, 11:41 AM
With all of the move already made, this offseason will still be a failure if the 5th starter isn't adequately addressed.

NonetheLoaiza
12-20-2004, 11:46 AM
didnt perez decline arbitration?

Mickster
12-20-2004, 11:46 AM
With all of the move already made, this offseason will still be a failure if the 5th starter isn't adequately addressed.
Exactly. Wasn't the 5th starter position the "excuse" that KW gave for the CLee trade? Don't get a 5th starter and this off-season is a total and complete failure! Podsednik or not!

thedudeabides
12-20-2004, 11:49 AM
You put FAR too much value into RBI's.

Runs batted in is a neat statistic, but it's not one you can use as a barometer for how good a hitter is. I'm not going to try to tell you that Scott Podsednik and Jermaine Dye are on par with how good Magglio and Carlos are, but Scott gives us the potential for a real top-of-the-order threat (which neither Carlos or Magglio were) and Jermaine is moving from pitcher-friendly Network Associates Coliseum to hitter-friendly U.S. Cellular Field. So, while we've lost two of our best hitters we haven't replaced them with nothing.

As for Valentin, no team needs 30 HR if it's attached to a .210 batting average. That's exactly the kind of thing we DON'T need in our lineup. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if we're worse offensively, it really isn't by as much as people are making it out to be. Our pitching is much better entering this season than it was entering last. Certainly enough to outweigh differences on offense.

Our offense still has the ability to knock about 200 dingers this upcoming season, and we're better defensively, and we've improved on pitching from any point last season.
Dead on about the pitching. Last year #2-ELo #3- Galand #4 Sho. Yuck!!!

mweflen
12-20-2004, 11:51 AM
You put FAR too much value into RBI's.

I agree that RBI is not a complete picture of a player's offensive impact. But it's one of the main ones, and probably the single most important. OBP is important of course, as well as runs scored. But the simple fact is, unless you hit 70 dingers for 70 RBIs, someone is going to have to score you from 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

I agree that Jose's exit is a welcome one. He killed way too many rallies.

However, Carlos gets on base just as much as Podsednik, and has the potential to drive in many more runs. The same goes for Magglio vs. Dye. And while Podsednik is an improvement defensively, Maggs/Dye is a wash.

As far as improving our pitching, our rotation is still the same, which is not too good. Drop 10 wins off of any team's record and they'll be in 2nd place lickety split. That's exactly what we did with out 5th starter debacle last year, and KW has done nothing to address this. Hermanson can't cut it, and Vizcaino is no better than Flush Gordon was for us in 2003.

Bottom line is, we are a weaker team than last year's version, which won a paltry 83 games. This is extremely disheartening, especially given a 15% or greater across the board ticket price hike.

I've been a Sox fan for a good 15 years. So of course I'm used to it. But it doesn't stop it from stinging every year.

kojak
12-20-2004, 11:53 AM
It was either Dick Van Patten or David Lee Roth that uttered the infamous words:

"Aw, might as well JUMP! Go ahead and JUMP!"

Dan H
12-20-2004, 11:55 AM
I would like to talk mweflen down off his bridge but I can't, at least not yet. I, for one, like the idea of getting more defense and pitching even playing in homer haven US Cellular. But I don't think the team has made signficant strides in these areas and the team is still full of plenty of questions marks. Many fans are worried about the #5 spot. I still have plenty of reservations about Contreras and Garland. If the Sox don't want to make a serious effort to improve their starting staff, they should have kept Lee. If the team is determined to lose, we can at least see the scoreboard go off a few times.

wdelaney72
12-20-2004, 11:57 AM
I'm on the bridge, as well.

Not much to be optimisti about. Not signing Clement hurt bad.

Hangar18
12-20-2004, 11:58 AM
Exactly. Wasn't the 5th starter position the "excuse" that KW gave for the CLee trade? Don't get a 5th starter and this off-season is a total and complete failure! Podsednik or not!
Thats why Every time KW and Uncle Jerry say something, its always BS.
After the Grief they got last year, telling SOX fans they "needed" to CUT PAYROLL, they werent going to tell us that again this year. This time
around, they simply are Rationalizing to us that "we want to be built around Pitching, Speed, and Defense". Thats a load of BullJive. They werent
going to spend the money. The 2 most expensive guys were dealt ......
There WONT be a pitcher.

Its Funny, I can totally see the high-stakes-poker game
for Randy Johnson getting ready, and everyone starts opening
their suitcases full of Chips (and high salaried players were being talked about), Security came
over and told Kenny that if he Aint Got the Poker Chips, he needs to step
away from the Table, and the Dodgers took his seat. heh heheh

mweflen
12-20-2004, 11:59 AM
I still have plenty of reservations about Contreras and Garland. .
Couldn't agree more. Contreras is a headcase, pure and simple. Garland is Kip Wells: The Next Generation. So basically, we have a solid 1 and 2, which is where we've been at for several years. Which leads me to believe we'll repeat the performance of the last several years: 2nd place.

jabrch
12-20-2004, 12:00 PM
Derek Lowe or Odalis Perez would be fine in the #3 spot. I don't think the season is over quite yet. I am going to enjoy White Sox baseball again in 2005 - I just hope the result is different than the last few years.

JB98
12-20-2004, 12:01 PM
I see this season being somewhat similar to 2003, at least in terms of results. Of course, the makeup of the team is different now, but I digress. My prediction:

The 2005 Sox will be good enough to hang around in the AL Central through the first half of the season. They are a flawed team that will frustrate us by losing games they shouldn't lose, but they'll do enough good things to be only four or five games back of Minnesota around the All-Star break. Then KW, still with extra money to spend from the CLee deal, will pull the trigger on a deal or two to shore up our holes. We'll make a second-half run, but we'll fall short. Come September, we'll all be moaning about missed opportunities and bad losses to teams like Detroit and Kansas City.

I just wish Sox management would give us a contender from the very start of the season for a change. They always take this "wait-and-see" approach about the first three months of the year, and then they adjust midseason. Well, the early-season games count just as much in the standings as those that are played in September. Bad losses in April and May can cost you a division title, and that's happended to the Sox a couple of times in recent history. Unfortunately, I see us headed down the same path this season.

I guess I'm not ready to jump of a bridge, but I see signs of trouble written on the wall.

MeanFish
12-20-2004, 12:02 PM
As far as improving our pitching, our rotation is still the same, which is not too good.
This time last year, our rotation was:

Buerhle, Loaiza, Garland, Schoeneweis, Wright

Right now, our rotation is:

Buerhle, Garcia, Contreras, Garland, Grilli

Now I don't know about you, but we don't have the same rotation. Maybe the same as we ended last year with, but not the same as we went in with. Our bullpen is much better, too. The added depth in middle relief combined with the subtraction of Mike Jackson will help the team a lot in late innings, and they won't feel obligated to make the starters go deep when they shouldn't.

In the four seasons preceding his injury, Jermaine Dye knocked in 100 or more runs three times. There's a fairly good chance he'll do that again.

Besides, it didn't help our situation that Carlos and Maggs were successful against the same types of pitchers, giving our offense a hot-and-cold sort of look. It doesn't do us much good if their RBI's happen on the same days.

anewman35
12-20-2004, 12:05 PM
Exactly. Wasn't the 5th starter position the "excuse" that KW gave for the CLee trade? Don't get a 5th starter and this off-season is a total and complete failure! Podsednik or not!
Do people listen to what KW says? He wants to get a 5th starter as bad as anybody, but you can't force somebody to sign. And he made it clear that, worst case scenerio, he'll upgrade the team midseason if he can.

Hangar18
12-20-2004, 12:09 PM
After the trade, I was uneasy, but flush with the prospect of signing some strong pitching, and possibly contending in 2005. I nervously laughed off Kenny's suggestion that the extra money might come in handy around June to do some tinkering. "Heh heh (nervous laugh)... of course you're just toying with us .... of course you wouldn't raise prices while cutting payroll


:reinsy " I was Kidding when I said I was going to Raise Payroll
and get some starters over here"

serena
12-20-2004, 12:10 PM
Am I alone in being depressed about our prospects?

After the trade, I was uneasy, but flush with the prospect of signing some strong pitching, and possibly contending in 2005. I nervously laughed off Kenny's suggestion that the extra money might come in handy around June to do some tinkering. "Heh heh (nervous laugh)... of course you're just toying with us Kenny.... of course you wouldn't raise prices while cutting payroll and stick Grilli or (must... control... involuntary.... retching...) Schoeneweis in the 5-spot!"

And now, Clement will be going to the BoSox, while Perez seems to have been offered arbitration by the Dodgers.

Which leaves me in a very tenuous emotional spot as a Sox fan. Here we have lost two 100-RBI men and one 30 HR man from our lineup. A third 100 RBI man is questionable. We've added Dye, an 80-RBI injury threat, and Podsednik, a mercurial question mark with little to no pop. Neither of our catchers is a threat to break .230 over a full season. We enter the season with another 10 loss hole looming in our rotation, an enigmatic but "talented" sub-.500 pitcher, and a headcase from Cuba who doesn't like to throw his fastball.

Is there any reason for hope? Derek Lowe? A.J. Pierzynski?

Stop me before I jump!!!
:thud:
I think the White Sox hopes will rest on a good portion of the players showing improvement and none declining from last year. That's a lot to ask for. What's holding my interest is watching the make-over of this team. The team is going to be really different from White Sox teams in the past. That might not be a good thing ... but I want to see how it plays out. :smile:

mweflen
12-20-2004, 12:16 PM
Do people listen to what KW says? He wants to get a 5th starter as bad as anybody, but you can't force somebody to sign. And he made it clear that, worst case scenerio, he'll upgrade the team midseason if he can.
You defininitely can't force someone to sign if you consistently underbid every other team in the majors.

LVSoxFan
12-20-2004, 12:17 PM
Upgrading midseason is too late, after years of futility and second-place finishes.

Midseason is another wait-and-see stall tactic which suggests we'll invest in the Sox for the first half, then when the second half slide begins, KW gets to ride to the "rescue" with a supposedly season-saving trade. Like with Freddy Garcia. Or Contreras.

The other thing that's absurd about waiting 'till midseason is that this team has been such a revolving door for the past few years--when are we going to pick a lineup and let them try and gel?

No quality fifth starter, I say "jump." Halfway through LAST season we ALL said we need a fifth starter. For us to now go into 2005 still WITHOUT that fifth starter is absolutely unacceptable.
That should have been the FIRST acquisition KW made.

mweflen
12-20-2004, 12:18 PM
This time last year, our rotation was:

Buerhle, Loaiza, Garland, Schoeneweis, Wright

Right now, our rotation is:

Buerhle, Garcia, Contreras, Garland, Grilli

Now I don't know about you, but we don't have the same rotation. Maybe the same as we ended last year with, but not the same as we went in with.
This is what I meant when I said "same rotation." I.E. the same ineffective rotation that we limped out of 2004 with. Two studs (though both prone to gopher balls), two duds, and one mystery meat special of the week.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 12:19 PM
Do people listen to what KW says? He wants to get a 5th starter as bad as anybody, but you can't force somebody to sign. And he made it clear that, worst case scenerio, he'll upgrade the team midseason if he can.
I listen to what he says but I don't think KW listens to what agents or players are saying. Unfortunately, I firmly believe that we need to overpay to actually bring in good FA signing to the Sox because, when all things are equal (monetary offers), a quality FA will choose to go elsewhere due to intangibles.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 12:22 PM
This time last year, our rotation was:

Buerhle, Loaiza, Garland, Schoeneweis, Wright

Right now, our rotation is:

Buerhle, Garcia, Contreras, Garland, Grilli

Now I don't know about you, but we don't have the same rotation.
I think you have to qualify your statements. Let me explain. At the beginning of '04, we indeed had Loaiza but the "Loaiza" that everyone had on their mind in the beginning of '04, was the "2nd in Cy Young - voting" Loaiza, not the "I sucked in '04" Loaiza. You can just as easily replace Loaiza with Garcia in the above scenario and we are exactly where we were at last year. Nothing has changed.

steff
12-20-2004, 12:24 PM
After the Grief they got last year, telling SOX fans they "needed" to CUT PAYROLL,


Ahhhh.. bs.. choo.. :whiner:

The needed to cut payroll yet they brought Garcia, Jose, Carl, and Robbie on board.. Good grief Henry.. you gotta proofread your bologna a little better.

And after we had such a good night Saturday.. :rolleyes: :tongue:

steff
12-20-2004, 12:25 PM
I think you have to qualify your statements. Let me explain. At the beginning of '04, we indeed had Loaiza but the "Loaiza" that everyone had on their mind in the beginning of '04, was the "2nd in Cy Young - voting" Loaiza, not the "I sucked in '04" Loaiza. You can just as easily replace Loaiza with Garcia in the above scenario and we are exactly where we were at last year. Nothing has changed.


How about if we replace Grilli with Loaiza.. ? :wink:

mweflen
12-20-2004, 12:25 PM
You can just as easily replace Loaiza with Garcia in the above scenario and we are exactly where we were at last year. Nothing has changed.
Exactly.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 12:26 PM
How about if we replace Grilli with Loaiza.. ? :wink:
As a 5th starter, I wouldn't mind. He is nothing more than a .500 pitcher anyway. Still better than the revolving door 5th starter that has been shoved down our throats the past few seasons....

mweflen
12-20-2004, 12:27 PM
How about if we replace Grilli with Loaiza.. ? :wink:That would be the cheap way out (which Uncle Jerry should love), but at least it's a way out. It's a better plan than "let's fling some random turds out there and see what sticks."

I'm tired of the turd-flinging policy the Sox have been operating under for the past, oh... 10 years? When can we have a big market ownership for a big market team?

MeanFish
12-20-2004, 12:28 PM
I think you have to qualify your statements. Let me explain. At the beginning of '04, we indeed had Loaiza but the "Loaiza" that everyone had on their mind in the beginning of '04, was the "2nd in Cy Young - voting" Loaiza, not the "I sucked in '04" Loaiza. You can just as easily replace Loaiza with Garcia in the above scenario and we are exactly where we were at last year. Nothing has changed.
That might be true, but the '04 "oh no we suck again!" Loaiza is the one we won 83 games with last year, so if we're going to do a comparison of this team vs. last year's team, we can't take all the bad and none of the good.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 12:30 PM
That might be true, but the '04 "oh no we suck again!" Loaiza is the one we won 83 games with last year, so if we're going to do a comparison of this team vs. last year's team, we can't take all the bad and none of the good.
83 games for 1/2 a year. He was traded at the deadline...

MeanFish
12-20-2004, 12:31 PM
Yeah, that's true. Hm...darn.

At least we've got churros still.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 12:33 PM
Yeah, that's true. Hm...darn.

At least we've got churros still.
Churros are all that we can look forward to in '05 unless KW spends some of the CLee savings and brings in a legit #3 starter.....

Hangar18
12-20-2004, 12:37 PM
Ahhhh.. bs.. choo.. :whiner:

The needed to cut payroll yet they brought Garcia, Jose, Carl, and Robbie on board.. Good grief Henry.. you gotta proofread your bologna a little better.

And after we had such a good night Saturday.. :rolleyes: :tongue:
Wasnt Garcia Cheaper? Everett we got burned on, hes more $$$$,
Alomar was a 2 month rental, hes NOT on the payroll this year........
All said and done, the team "needed" to dump Ordonez and Lee in order
to Cut payroll, too many guys got Raises ..........

Baby Fisk
12-20-2004, 12:39 PM
No new Starting Pitcher before spring training = failure. :angry:
Kenny telling us we have flexibility to get a new Starting Pitcher in June = BS. :angry: :angry:

steff
12-20-2004, 12:44 PM
Wasnt Garcia Cheaper? Everett we got burned on, hes more $$$$,
Alomar was a 2 month rental, hes NOT on the payroll this year........
All said and done, the team "needed" to dump Ordonez and Lee in order
to Cut payroll, too many guys got Raises ..........

Cheaper than what...? He was ADDED payroll.. as was Carl, Robbie, and Jose.

Wait.. now you're talking about cutting payroll for THIS year..? But you said LAST year..?

And where is that quote stating that they had to "cut payroll" and "dump" Maggs and Lee...? I love it when you back up your posts with facts.. :wink:

steff
12-20-2004, 12:44 PM
No new Starting Pitcher before spring training = failure. :angry:
Kenny telling us we have flexibility to get a new Starting Pitcher in June = BS. :angry: :angry:

Spring training started already...??:o:

mweflen
12-20-2004, 12:58 PM
I suppose if we pick up Loaiza for cheap, it would be just as if we got Contreras as a discounted free agent.... or something....

...better than nothing!

Ol' No. 2
12-20-2004, 01:01 PM
I suppose if we pick up Loaiza for cheap, it would be just as if we got Contreras as a discounted free agent.... or something....

...better than nothing!Look at Loaiza's numbers before 2003. That's likely the Loaiza you're going to be getting. Bring him in as a minor league free agent next spring if he's still kicking around, but I bet he won't be. Someone with nothing to lose will sign him hoping to get the 2003 version. They'll be disappointed. I'd just as soon it wasn't us.

mweflen
12-20-2004, 01:06 PM
Look at Loaiza's numbers before 2003. That's likely the Loaiza you're going to be getting. Bring him in as a minor league free agent next spring if he's still kicking around, but I bet he won't be. Someone with nothing to lose will sign him hoping to get the 2003 version. They'll be disappointed. I'd just as soon it wasn't us.
If we were to sign Loaiza as our #5 starter, it would not be in the hopes of a 2003 repeat. It would be in the hopes that he could pitch at around a 5 ERA and keep us in games. I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation.

Paulwny
12-20-2004, 01:09 PM
didnt perez decline arbitration?
Yes he did, latest rumor, Seattle will offer $18 mil for 3yrs.

DMarte708
12-20-2004, 01:10 PM
I suppose if we pick up Loaiza for cheap, it would be just as if we got Contreras as a discounted free agent.... or something....

...better than nothing! Absolutely not.

I said to myself before the offseason, and its looking to be true, that after every viable starter is snatched from the market we'll lower our standards and accept mediocrity. If I had asked anyone on this site if Loaiza was an option two months ago no one would have agreed. If Williams doesn't sign Odalis Perez, or use the remaining money to upgrade various positions, questions concerning his job should arise. It's simply unacceptable to publicly place the downfall of this club on the 5th starter, yet do NOTHING to address it. I understand non-tendered pitchers have yet to be released, and several options do remain, but I know that Williams must move quickly when opportunities are available.

Tragg
12-20-2004, 01:11 PM
If we were to sign Loaiza as our #5 starter, it would not be in the hopes of a 2003 repeat. It would be in the hopes that he could pitch at around a 5 ERA and keep us in games. I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation.That is a reasonable expectation for a 5th starter; we have one named Jon Garland

The whole idea was to get a starter in the 1-3 positions, by letting ourselves get shortchanged in talent by the brewers

MRKARNO
12-20-2004, 01:12 PM
Yes he did, latest rumor, Seattle will offer $18 mil for 3yrs.
We won't be able to beat that offer.

And I dont think they have a lot of money to go much higher than that, though I read that he likes the Nats, but that's probably an impossibility if they dont work out their stadium problems.

mweflen
12-20-2004, 01:14 PM
Absolutely not.

I said to myself before the season, and its looking to be true, that after every viable starter is snatched from the market we'll lower our standards and accept mediocrity. If I had asked anyone on this site if Loaiza was an option two months ago no one would have agreed. If Williams doesn't sign Odalis Perez, or use the remaining money to upgrade various positions, questions concerning his job should arise. It's simply unacceptable to publicly place the downfall of this club on the 5th starter, yet do NOTHING to address it. I understand non-tendered pitchers have yet to be released, and several options do remain, but I know that Williams must move quick.
Hey, you're preaching to the choir, dude. I think KW/JR should bite the bullet and overpay a tad for Perez or Clement, pushing Garland to 5. I just have lost all realistic hope of this happening.

So, absent any shred of hope (hmmm, a familiar place for sox fans), our choices for #5 seem to be Schoeneweis (who I think should be non-tendered owing to his lousy attitude), Grilli (yawn) and Loaiza. Of those three piss poor options, I think Loaiza is the best.

Yep, a sad place to arrive at.:whiner:

DMarte708
12-20-2004, 01:15 PM
Yes he did, latest rumor, Seattle will offer $18 mil for 3yrs. Rotoworld said Nationals offered Perez 18 million over 3 years, and Seattle was expected to top it. Unless this news is false, or your source is updated, our 21million/3 year deal offered to Clement should be enough to land Perez.

Hangar18
12-20-2004, 01:15 PM
Cheaper than what...? He was ADDED payroll.. as was Carl, Robbie, and Jose.

Wait.. now you're talking about cutting payroll for THIS year..? But you said LAST year..?

And where is that quote stating that they had to "cut payroll" and "dump" Maggs and Lee...? I love it when you back up your posts with facts.. :wink:
Ok, I meant Loaiza for Contreras, Jose was cheaper. The quotes were all
over the place, saying they had to "reduce payroll" in order to "add players".
This was a Guise. They were quick to reduce the payroll, now they WONT
add any players. SO if all adds up correctly, the SOX will have CUT PAYROLL
in essence.

Ol' No. 2
12-20-2004, 01:16 PM
If we were to sign Loaiza as our #5 starter, it would not be in the hopes of a 2003 repeat. It would be in the hopes that he could pitch at around a 5 ERA and keep us in games. I don't think this is an unreasonable expectation.You would be disappointed in 3 of the last 4 years.

infohawk
12-20-2004, 01:19 PM
I'm on the bridge, as well.

Not much to be optimisti about. Not signing Clement hurt bad.
Everyone needs to relax. Its only December 20. Plenty of time left for further additions/changes to the roster. If opening day arrives and there have been no additional moves, we might have something to complain about. We should avoid the temptation of assuming KW is done until we know for a fact that he is done.

Hangar18
12-20-2004, 01:20 PM
I think KW/JR should bite the bullet and overpay a tad for Perez or Clement, pushing Garland to 5. I just have lost all realistic hope of this happening.

:reinsy ".....Oh and tell the waitress Id like an extra order
of Odalis Perez please. and put it on MWEFLENs tab, heh heh"

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 01:20 PM
I think you have to qualify your statements. Let me explain. At the beginning of '04, we indeed had Loaiza but the "Loaiza" that everyone had on their mind in the beginning of '04, was the "2nd in Cy Young - voting" Loaiza, not the "I sucked in '04" Loaiza. You can just as easily replace Loaiza with Garcia in the above scenario and we are exactly where we were at last year. Nothing has changed.
WOW what a stupid argument. YES expectations have not changed, but if you think we'll get the same production from Garcia this year that we got from Loaiza last year, you're mad - MAD i tell you!....

Our rotation has most likely improved....now I can't say that for sure because injuries have happened but it's hard to tell me that the 2005 production of Buehrle/Garcia/Garland/Contreras/Grill won't be better than the 2004 production of the collective efforts of Buehrle/Loaiza/Garland/Schoenweis,Garcia/Wright,Rauch,Diaz,Grilli, ad nauseum

Paulwny
12-20-2004, 01:24 PM
Rotoworld said Nationals offered Perez 18 million over 3 years, and Seattle was expected to top it. Unless this news is false, or your source is updated, our 21million/3 year deal offered to Clement should be enough to land Perez.
Damn, should have waited for my brain to warm up, 4 dgrees outside. You're right, Seattle to offer more the $18 for 3yrs, beating the Nationals' offer. :smile:

Mickster
12-20-2004, 01:28 PM
WOW what a stupid argument. YES expectations have not changed, but if you think we'll get the same production from Garcia this year that we got from Loaiza last year, you're mad - MAD i tell you!....

Our rotation has most likely improved....now I can't say that for sure because injuries have happened but it's hard to tell me that the 2005 production of Buehrle/Garcia/Garland/Contreras/Grill won't be better than the 2004 production of the collective efforts of Buehrle/Loaiza/Garland/Schoenweis,Garcia/Wright,Rauch,Diaz,Grilli, ad nauseum
Mine was a stupid argument? Wow. My expectations for Loaiza in the beginning of '04 were pretty high. In fact, I mistakenly expected him to repeat his 2003 performance. Pretty silly, huh. I have similar expections from Garcia in '05. I am merely saying that we can not judge Loaiza based on his '04 performance before he actually tanked.

I will stand by my argument that at the beginning of '04, many were placing Loaiza as the ace of our rotation and Buehrle as the #2. Now we are placing Garcia as the #1 and Buehrle as the #2. See any similarities????

DMarte708
12-20-2004, 01:29 PM
Everyone needs to relax. Its only December 20. Plenty of time left for further additions/changes to the roster. If opening day arrives and there have been no additional moves, we might have something to complain about. We should avoid the temptation of assuming KW is done until we know for a fact that he is done. So, from now until early April we're expected to put faith in the organization to properly fill holes?

Any additional move won't satisfy my expectations entering this offseason. Trading for Shawn Chacon, while he may be an upgrade in the 5th starters position, does not fulfill Williams promise of brining in a top-tier pitcher. Good moves should follow simple criteria: improve the team without creating additional holes. What's the best method of achieving this goal? Signing FA's, ignoring the trade route.

I'd rather complain EVERY DAY Williams ignores our problems. If a free agent is signed which will lessen our troubles, it only heightens my frustration.

Ol' No. 2
12-20-2004, 01:32 PM
I'd rather complain EVERY DAY Williams ignores our problems. If a free agent is signed which will lessen our troubles, it only heightens my frustration.Frustrated about having fewer things to complain about?:D:

DMarte708
12-20-2004, 01:34 PM
Damn, I incorrectly worded my statement. :redneck

I meant every FA signed by another club, which could have been useful for the Sox, heightens my frustration.

maurice
12-20-2004, 01:42 PM
For me, it all comes down to one more move. Unfortunately, the options are dwindling.

If KW gets a credible #3 or better starter without creating more holes, I'll be okay. If he only signs a #5 starter, I'll be pretty upset. If JR pockets the savings on the Lee deal and leaves Grilli in the rotation, I will be extremely pissed.

mweflen
12-20-2004, 01:52 PM
For me, it all comes down to one more move. Unfortunately, the options are dwindling.

If KW gets a credible #3 or better starter without creating more holes, I'll be okay. If he only signs a #5 starter, I'll be pretty upset. If JR pockets the savings on the Lee deal and leaves Grilli in the rotation, I will be extremely pissed.I think this pretty much sums up the attitude of nearly the entire fan base.

So the question to JR/KW is: can you afford to slap your fans in the face once again? How long will it take attendance to recover after this most recent salary dump?

Kenny, if you're lurking here... PLEASE sign a credible #3!

Hangar18
12-20-2004, 01:53 PM
................ without creating more holes, I'll be okay. If he only signs a #5 starter, I'll be pretty upset. If JR pockets the savings on the Lee deal and leaves Grilli in the rotation, I will be extremely pissed.

:reinsy (Grinning Wickedly)

mjharrison72
12-20-2004, 02:10 PM
Hey, you're preaching to the choir, dude. I think KW/JR should bite the bullet and overpay a tad for Perez or Clement, pushing Garland to 5. I just have lost all realistic hope of this happening.

So, absent any shred of hope (hmmm, a familiar place for sox fans), our choices for #5 seem to be Schoeneweis (who I think should be non-tendered owing to his lousy attitude), Grilli (yawn) and Loaiza. Of those three piss poor options, I think Loaiza is the best.

Yep, a sad place to arrive at.:whiner:There are lots of FA pitchers out there still who we could sign and move Garland to #5. I wouldn't give up hope just yet. I don't think the options are limited to finding someone to fill the fifth starter spot like Loaiza... if that's the option, stay with Grilli and see how the first couple months pan out. I'm as impatient as the rest of you, but there are a few months left in the offseason and there are plenty of pitchers left to be signed. Clement isn't that great anyway... he lost more games last year than he won! I know... it was that great Flubbie run support.

wdelaney72
12-20-2004, 02:48 PM
How about if we replace Grilli with Loaiza.. ? :wink:
Steff,

I normally appreciate your optimism, but signing Loaiza does not really do much for our starting rotation. Most of us, had hoped for an improved starting rotation.

Garcia, Buehrle, Contreras, Garland, and Loaiza = 2 good pitchers and 3 no. 5 starters (OK, maybe Contreras is a #4). This will hardly get the job done.

Kenny clearly stated in his C. Lee trade video conference his number 1 priority was solidifying one of the top starting rotations in the AL. We're all standing by watching the remaining good pitchers sign with other teams. It may only be 12/20, but Perez and Millwood are all that's left and they are both a downgrade from Pavano, Clement, Lieber, Pedro, and Jaret Wright. If (and likely when) these 2 sign with another team, Kenny will be limited to upgrading the SP via a trade, which will likely cost as Garland. I'm not a FOJG, but he's a serviceable #5 starter. Any trade for Vazquez or any other SP will likely result in the same hole in the #5 spot.

I want to be excited about '05, but Kenny keeps making it very difficult... and I consider myself a FOKW.

:(:

mweflen
12-20-2004, 02:49 PM
:reinsy ".....Oh and tell the waitress Id like an extra order
of Odalis Perez please. and put it on MWEFLENs tab, heh heh"
This would be funny, except Uncle Jerry HAS been putting it on the fans' tab for years, and the entree still hasn't arrived.

Management should at least give us a gift certificate for a free meal.

infohawk
12-20-2004, 02:51 PM
I'd rather complain EVERY DAY Williams ignores our problems. If a free agent is signed which will lessen our troubles, it only heightens my frustration.I sympathize with your position, but I don't think that KW is ignoring our team's problems. While avoiding a discussion on the legitimacy of the Sox middle-of-the-road payroll - I know many here believe the organization's payroll limitation is self-imposed and they may be right - KW has been doing some very heavy work to change the foundation of the team. Instead of starting the clock in October, we need to take a broader view and recognize that KW has been wheeling-and-dealing since June/July (and to a certain extent prior to that in terms of the players who will help the 2005 team).

He started with the pitching staff by trading for Garcia ahead of the trade deadline. Contreras was acquired at the deadline. Garcia is a number one or two starter. Contreras is a number three or four starter. Regardless, Buerhle, Garcia, Contreras and Garland is a significant upgrade over Buerhle, Loaiza, Garland, Schoenweiss.

Kenny has also upgraded the bullpen considerably. Hermanson and Vizcaino will contribute to what may prove to be one of the more effective bullpens in the league. For what appeared to be a minor acquisition at the time, Marte has become one of the more dominating left-handed relievers in the game. What ever became of the second coming of Greg Maddux, Matt Guerrier, whom the Sox gave to the Pirates for Marte? I guess its just another case of KW giving away our top prospects in dumb trades! Shingo also turned out to be a pretty shrewd bullpen acquisition by KW. Remember that most general managers didn't think Shingo could pitch effectively in the majors because he was a "soft-tosser." How many of these general managers now wish they would have picked up Shingo on the cheap like KW did? Poor dumb Kenny!

How about the offense? I think most of us realized a couple of years ago that our collection of power hitters weren't winning any division titles. The team needed more balance, but a significant portion of the payroll was going to Ordonez, Lee, Konerko, Valentin and Thomas. Ordonez walked and KW filled that hole with Dye. While Jose was a popular player, I am convinced that his absence alone will prove to be somewhat of an upgrade. Way too many strikeouts and wasted at-bats. His thirty or so homers did not make up for the wasted at-bats. Uribe hit something like .283 with around twenty homers, plays good defense and doesn't throw away nearly as many at-bats as Jose did. By the way, his salary is reasonable in the context of the once again escalating salaries (see Vizquel, Omar). KW didn't have to give up much to get Uribe either. He is much more versatile than Aaron Miles as Miles can only play second base while Uribe can play most other infield positions. And Uribe can hit for power while Miles can't.

Many of us have demanded a true lead-off hitter, more team speed and more left-handers for the line-up. KW has begun to address this need by trading for Podsednik. Left-handed centerfielders with speed who can lead-off are not easy to come by.

In summation, primarily since last June/July, KW has upgraded the pitching in both the rotation and bullpen. The Sox also probably have the best defensive outfield we have seen on the southside in years. They have a left-handed speedster at the top of the line-up who, even in an off-year, stole seventy bases. They have upgraded the .OBP at shortstop. Crede, Uribe, Harris and Konerko make a pretty solid defensive infield. There is a good possibility that the Sox can expect at least twenty homers each out of Thomas, Dye, Crede, Konerko, Rowand and Uribe. I believe that KW possibly has two more moves to make, a starting pitcher will be one of them, but I think the evidence shows that he has done a tremendous amount of work to re-orient this team.

My suspicion is that many of your perceptions would be different if KW had acquired Garcia, Contreras, Uribe and Takatsu in addition to Podsednik, Hermanson and Vizciano within the last month. It takes many, many moves to change the make-up of a team. KW is well on his way and he isn't done yet.

mweflen
12-20-2004, 03:08 PM
My suspicion is that many of your perceptions would be different if KW had acquired Garcia, Contreras, Uribe and Takatsu in addition to Podsednik, Hermanson and Vizciano within the last month. It takes many, many moves to change the make-up of a team. KW is well on his way and he isn't done yet.
This is a good point. I too applaud many if not all of Kenny's moves over the past season or two.

However, this does not change the fact that our rotation is dangerously weak after the 2-spot. Contreras is a loon and Garland has shown no signs of evolving. Pitchers who would be anywhere even close to good enough for the 3 hole are disappearing left and right to teams who are willing to pony up the dough.

Not very encouraging, especially when KW makes an idiotic statement like freeing up 7 or 8 mil puts us in a good position come June...

MisterB
12-20-2004, 03:12 PM
I will stand by my argument that at the beginning of '04, many were placing Loaiza as the ace of our rotation and Buehrle as the #2. Now we are placing Garcia as the #1 and Buehrle as the #2. See any similarities????
Take a look at the career numbers for Garcia and pre-2004 Loaiza. I see very few similarities.

infohawk
12-20-2004, 03:18 PM
Not very encouraging, especially when KW makes an idiotic statement like freeing up 7 or 8 mil puts us in a good position come June...
I wonder if the "saving the money for a midseason trade" statement is just a bluff. It may weaken KW's bargaining position if other teams who are potential trading partners or representatives of free agents know you have the money and are desperate to spend it to fill a hole. Just some flying under the radar gamesmanship!

FarWestChicago
12-20-2004, 03:29 PM
Stop me before I jump!!!
:thud:Please, please JUMP!! And aim for the rocks!! :thumbsup:

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 03:32 PM
Mine was a stupid argument? Wow. My expectations for Loaiza in the beginning of '04 were pretty high. In fact, I mistakenly expected him to repeat his 2003 performance. Pretty silly, huh. I have similar expections from Garcia in '05. I am merely saying that we can not judge Loaiza based on his '04 performance before he actually tanked.

I will stand by my argument that at the beginning of '04, many were placing Loaiza as the ace of our rotation and Buehrle as the #2. Now we are placing Garcia as the #1 and Buehrle as the #2. See any similarities????
wait...so i misread your argument - you're saying that garcia is just as likely to have a loaiza 04 year as loaiza was at the beginning of 04?

i guess i underestimated what a bad argument you were making.


the fact is, we have 3 proven commodities - buehrle, garcia, and garland

we know the absolute worst we can expect from them.

we have two ?'s

Last year we had two proven commodities - buehrle and garland and 3 ?'s

I think that it's safe to feel a lot more confident going into this season than going into last season.

kojak
12-20-2004, 03:33 PM
I wonder if the "saving the money for a midseason trade" statement is just a bluff. It may weaken KW's bargaining position if other teams who are potential trading partners or representatives of free agents know you have the money and are desperate to spend it to fill a hole. Just some flying under the radar gamesmanship!

That's what I'm thinking. Especially after he said (after SF signed Vizquel) that he was going to stop "tipping his hand"...

KW has essentially rebuilt this team since June and he is not done. There will be more changes before Opening Day. I am definitely willing to give him the benefit of the doubt...

Mickster
12-20-2004, 03:33 PM
wait...so i misread your argument - you're saying that garcia is just as likely to have a loaiza 04 year as loaiza was at the beginning of 04?

i guess i underestimated what a bad argument you were making.

Strike 2. Care to try again?

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 03:34 PM
]
Not very encouraging, especially when KW makes an idiotic statement like freeing up 7 or 8 mil puts us in a good position come June...
What's more idiotic? if kenny HAD made that statement, or the fact that you took his actual statement out of context to make yourself feel worse about the upcoming year?

Kenny said WORST CASE SCENARIO is that we have money to spend.

He wanted to get Clement, he SAID THIS.

His plan was NEVER to sit on the money until June.

That is called a BACKUP PLAN.


ARRRGH - Sox fans.

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 03:39 PM
Mine was a stupid argument? Wow. My expectations for Loaiza in the beginning of '04 were pretty high. In fact, I mistakenly expected him to repeat his 2003 performance. Pretty silly, huh. I have similar expections from Garcia in '05. I am merely saying that we can not judge Loaiza based on his '04 performance before he actually tanked.

I will stand by my argument that at the beginning of '04, many were placing Loaiza as the ace of our rotation and Buehrle as the #2. Now we are placing Garcia as the #1 and Buehrle as the #2. See any similarities????
I think you have to qualify your statements. Let me explain. At the beginning of '04, we indeed had Loaiza but the "Loaiza" that everyone had on their mind in the beginning of '04, was the "2nd in Cy Young - voting" Loaiza, not the "I sucked in '04" Loaiza. You can just as easily replace Loaiza with Garcia in the above scenario and we are exactly where we were at last year. Nothing has changed.

clearly what you're saying is the commodity of Garcia going into this year is the same as the commodity of Loaiza going into last year.

I don't care what we THOUGHT at the beginning of last year. The facts bear out what anyone who expected Loaiza to repeat should have seen - the fact is - a cy young season preceded by 5+ years of vomit.

If you're going to say Garcia is comparable to our expectations of Loaiza at the beginning of last year, you could just as easily say ANY PITCHER IN THE MLB is comparable to our expectations of Loaiza at the beginning of last year -

Unlike w/ Loaiza, there's no reason to think Garcia will tank it, barring injury.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 03:42 PM
the fact is, we have 3 proven commodities - buehrle, garcia, and garland
http://www.tolland.k12.ct.us/techservices/RoseColoredGlasses.gif

Mickster
12-20-2004, 03:43 PM
clearly what you're saying is the commodity of Garcia going into this year is the same as the commodity of Loaiza going into last year.

I don't care what we THOUGHT at the beginning of last year. The facts bear out what anyone who expected Loaiza to repeat should have seen - the fact is - a cy young season preceded by 5+ years of vomit.

If you're going to say Garcia is comparable to our expectations of Loaiza at the beginning of last year, you could just as easily say ANY PITCHER IN THE MLB is comparable to our expectations of Loaiza at the beginning of last year -

Unlike w/ Loaiza, there's no reason to think Garcia will tank it, barring injury.
I certainly did not expect the Loaiza that we saw. That is for sure.....

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 03:47 PM
http://www.tolland.k12.ct.us/techservices/RoseColoredGlasses.gif
you dont' believe that we know exactly what we can expect from garland?

i will predict at least 10 wins and no worse than 4.75 ERA.

Do you dispute that? I would be surprised he doesn't fall within 10-15 wins 10-15 losses and a 4.50-5.00 Era

meanwhile with contreras and grilli (worst case) and Schoe and Wright last year we had absolutely no idea what we're going to get.

that's all i mean - i certainly don't mean garland is exceptional by any means.

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 03:48 PM
I certainly did not expect the Loaiza that we saw. That is for sure.....
that's fine...but that does not mean there is any reason to think garcia will have a bad year...

unless you want to ask dadawg or something. then we're looking at at least a 5.50 ERA

mweflen
12-20-2004, 03:53 PM
you dont' believe that we know exactly what we can expect from garland?

i will predict at least 10 wins and no worse than 4.75 ERA.

Do you dispute that? I would be surprised he doesn't fall within 10-15 wins 10-15 losses and a 4.50-5.00 Era

meanwhile with contreras and grilli (worst case) and Schoe and Wright last year we had absolutely no idea what we're going to get.

that's all i mean - i certainly don't mean garland is exceptional by any means.The problem is, you seem to be accepting the notion of a 10-12 game winner as an acceptable option for a 3 or 4 starter. Which, by extension, means you accept the notion of an 83-79 team every year as acceptable.

Garland is indeed a known quantity = mediocre.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 03:55 PM
you dont' believe that we know exactly what we can expect from garland?

i will predict at least 10 wins and no worse than 4.75 ERA.

Do you dispute that? I would be surprised he doesn't fall within 10-15 wins 10-15 losses and a 4.50-5.00 Era

meanwhile with contreras and grilli (worst case) and Schoe and Wright last year we had absolutely no idea what we're going to get.

that's all i mean - i certainly don't mean garland is exceptional by any means.Wright won 14 games in a season for us. We now have Contreras. While contreras has MUCH better stuff, we can expect about the same. 14 Wins.

We had no idea what we were getting with Schoe. Grilli (unless KW makes a move)? About the same.

We had Buehrle to start '04. Have him again. About the same.

We had Garland to strart '04. Have him again. About the same.

We had Loaiza (coming off 21 win season, 2nd in CY Young voting) - HIGH expectations from myself and many others on this board going into the 2004 season. We now have Garcia. Expectations? About the same.

To say that we are much better off this year as opposed to last with respect to our pitching staff......

http://www.tolland.k12.ct.us/techservices/RoseColoredGlasses.gif

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 03:56 PM
The problem is, you seem to be accepting the notion of a 10-12 game winner as an acceptable option for a 3 or 4 starter. Which, by extension, means you accept the notion of an 83-79 team every year as acceptable.

Garland is indeed a known quantity = mediocre.
he's really not charted in at our 3rd starter...ideally he would be our 4th behind conteras

and THAT'S assuming we can't sign another starter.

So at the worrrrrst our third fourth and fifth spots are NO IMPROVEMENT over what we had going into last year and our #2 spot is a reasonable improvement.

That's all.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 03:57 PM
that's fine...but that does not mean there is any reason to think garcia will have a bad year...

That is exactly my point. I didn't expect Loaiza to have a bad year. Nor do I expect Freddy to. I am at the exact same place I was 12 months ago........ Same staff.....

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 03:58 PM
Wright won 14 games in a season for us. We now have Contreras. While contreras has MUCH better stuff, we can expect about the same. 14 Wins.

We had no idea what we were getting with Schoe. Grilli (unless KW makes a move)? About the same.

We had Buehrle to start '04. Have him again. About the same.

We had Garland to strart '04. Have him again. About the same.

We had Loaiza (coming off 21 win season, 2nd in CY Young voting) - HIGH expectations from myself and many others on this board going into the 2004 season. We now have Garcia. Expectations? About the same.

To say that we are much better off this year as opposed to last with respect to our pitching staff......

http://www.tolland.k12.ct.us/techservices/RoseColoredGlasses.gif
BUT we knew wright was hurting AND we knew he was coming off a REPREHENSIBLE season.

Contreras has not had a LOUSY season in his two years. He could be great, could be bad, FINE. Wright had no potential to be great... rode the tails of great run support - remember even when he won 14 games his ERA was HIGH.

AT any rate, my point stands - this season at WORST our 3-5 spots will be a wash leaving the key being Garcia vs. Loaiza, your expectations last year aside.

Ol' No. 2
12-20-2004, 03:58 PM
Wright won 14 games in a season for us. We now have Contreras. While contreras has MUCH better stuff, we can expect about the same. 14 Wins.

We had no idea what we were getting with Schoe. Grilli (unless KW makes a move)? About the same.

We had Buehrle to start '04. Have him again. About the same.

We had Garland to strart '04. Have him again. About the same.

We had Loaiza (coming off 21 win season, 2nd in CY Young voting) - HIGH expectations from myself and many others on this board going into the 2004 season. We now have Garcia. Expectations? About the same.

To say that we are much better off this year as opposed to last with respect to our pitching staff......

http://www.tolland.k12.ct.us/techservices/RoseColoredGlasses.gifSo your argument boils down to:
Wright = Contreras and
Loaiza=Garcia

I've never heard such a load of crap in my life. Just because you were EXPECTING great things from Loaiza doesn't make them equal. If I EXPECT 21 wins from Grilli, does that make him equal to Randy Johnson? No. It makes me a fool.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 04:01 PM
I've never heard such a load of crap in my life. Just because you were EXPECTING great things from Loaiza doesn't make them equal. If I EXPECT 21 wins from Grilli, does that make him equal to Randy Johnson? No. It makes me a fool.
No. 2, where did you have Loaiza in the 2004 rotation to start the year?

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 04:02 PM
That is exactly my point. I didn't expect Loaiza to have a bad year. Nor do I expect Freddy to. I am at the exact same place I was 12 months ago........ Same staff.....
Jeez, so many posts. apologies to everyone else but these keep popping up.

Do you not see the difference between expectations for Loaiza at the beginning of 2004 and the expectations for Garcia now?

It's like the difference between expectations of podsednik going into the 2004 season to hit .300 vs. for jason kendall. And I would argue it's even more absurd since Podsednik was a rookie and kendall has nagging injury concerns.

Loaiza's career year stands as an island while Garcia's injury was a freak accident that has cleared up and is no more likely to recur in him than anyone.

mweflen
12-20-2004, 04:02 PM
he's really not charted in at our 3rd starter...ideally he would be our 4th behind conteras

and THAT'S assuming we can't sign another starter.

So at the worrrrrst our third fourth and fifth spots are NO IMPROVEMENT over what we had going into last year and our #2 spot is a reasonable improvement.

That's all.but the difference between a #1 starter and a #4 starter is exactly diddly squat - they both start the same number of games in a season, give or take one based on the calendar.

The only difference is between #5 and everyone else - spot starter vs. regular.

So having Garland in the 1-4 mix is a recipe for mediocrity. 12-13, 13-12, either way it spells: S E C O N D P L A C E

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 04:03 PM
No. 2, where did you have Loaiza in the 2004 rotation to start the year?
Think about who else was IN our rotation...wow we had a LOUSY rotation last year...

I can't BELIEVE you are arguing this years' is equal to it

Ol' No. 2
12-20-2004, 04:03 PM
No. 2, where did you have Loaiza in the 2004 rotation to start the year?What possible difference does that make? Would you rather have a staff of good pitchers or a staff of pitchers you expect to be good?

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 04:04 PM
but the difference between a #1 starter and a #4 starter is exactly diddly squat - they both start the same number of games in a season, give or take one based on the calendar.

The only difference is between #5 and everyone else - spot starter vs. regular.

So having Garland in the mix is a recipe for mediocrity 12-13, 13-12, either way it spells: S E C O N D P L A C E
do you understand what 3rd and 4th starters on ALMOST EVERY TEAM's records look like?

Do you think most 3rd or 4th starters win 15 games?

Go do the homework.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 04:04 PM
What possible difference does that make? Would you rather have a staff of good pitchers or a staff of pitchers you expect to be good?
Can I get an answer?

Tragg
12-20-2004, 04:04 PM
Everyone needs to relax. Its only December 20. Plenty of time left for further additions/changes to the roster. If opening day arrives and there have been no additional moves, we might have something to complain about. We should avoid the temptation of assuming KW is done until we know for a fact that he is done.
Oh there is time; problem is there are few players left- one to be exact named perez.

A trade won't cut it, unless we get the one-sided talent in return for taking on salary (the salary we saved w/ Lee); as that has never happened in Williams world, I doubt it does now.

And what is obvious is that Williams didn't have a firm plan and the trade with Mil was primarily a salary dump

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 04:06 PM
Can I get an answer?
what does it matter? the season played out. If garcia has a Loaiza year, I'll stand corrected -

BUT THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON TO ASSUME HE WILL.

Yes I had Loaiza pencilled in at no. 2 as did no. 2 probably.

That is testament to how crappy our rotation was last year with Schoenweis and Wright.

mweflen
12-20-2004, 04:07 PM
do you understand what 3rd and 4th starters on ALMOST EVERY TEAM's records look like?

Do you think most 3rd or 4th starters win 15 games?

Go do the homework.Of course almost every team has a mediocre 3, 4, or 5. Then again, almost every team DOESN'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS.

Gee, what a concept. A sox fan who is not content with perennial 2nd place status? A sox fan who wants to see his team equipped with the players who can secure a playoff berth?

AAARGH, sox Fans.

Take your "homework" and shove it.

Ol' No. 2
12-20-2004, 04:08 PM
Can I get an answer?No. How good you or I may have THOUGHT they were going to be is irrelevant. But I will say if you had asked me this time last year to choose between Garcia and Loaiza, I'd have chosen Garcia in a heartbeat.

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 04:09 PM
Of course almost every team has a mediocre 3, 4, or 5. Then again, almost every team DOESN'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS.

Gee, what a concept. A sox fan who is not content with perrennial 2nd place status? A sox fan who wants to see his team equipped with the players who can secure a playoff berth?

AAARGH, sox Fans.

Take your "homework" and shove it.
I'm talking about PLAYOFF TEAMS... Think about it...Who were the Dodgers, Braves, Red Sox, Angels, Yankees, Twins, and Cardinals third starters and what were their records?

I don't want to take 2nd but what do you mean I'm satisfied/not satisfied with it? What am I going to do? be fairweather?

But maybe I should spit and moan and ignore the facts on a message board...that will enact change AND HOW!

Mickster
12-20-2004, 04:10 PM
No. How good you or I may have THOUGHT they were going to be is irrelevant. But I will say if you had asked me this time last year to choose between Garcia and Loaiza, I'd have chosen Garcia in a heartbeat.
As would I, but you would expect the same from your #2 nonetheless, 15-18 wins right? Do you expect any more from Freddy in '05?

Ol' No. 2
12-20-2004, 04:12 PM
Of course almost every team has a mediocre 3, 4, or 5. Then again, almost every team DOESN'T MAKE THE PLAYOFFS.

Gee, what a concept. A sox fan who is not content with perrennial 2nd place status? A sox fan who wants to see his team equipped with the players who can secure a playoff berth?

AAARGH, sox Fans.

Take your "homework" and shove it.Perhaps you ought to count up the number of teams who had three starters who had a better ERA than Garland last year. I think you'll be surprised at how few there were. Even among the playoff teams.

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 04:18 PM
I'm talking about PLAYOFF TEAMS... Think about it...Who were the Dodgers, Braves, Red Sox, Angels, Yankees, Twins, and Cardinals third starters and what were their records?

I don't want to take 2nd but what do you mean I'm satisfied/not satisfied with it? What am I going to do? be fairweather?

But maybe I should spit and moan and ignore the facts on a message board...that will enact change AND HOW!
here: I'll do it for you -

Based on Wins:

Yankees:

1.Jon Lieber - 14 W
2.Javier Vazquez - 14 W
3.Mike Mussina - 12 W

Red Sox:

1.Schilling - 21 W
2. Pedro - 16 W
3. Lowe - 14 W

Atlanta

1. Wright 15 W
2. Ortiz 15 W
3. Thomson 14 W

Angels

1. Colon 18 W
2. Lackey 14 W
3. Escobar 11 W

Dodgers

Weaver, Lima, and Ishii each had 13

Twins

1.Santana 20 W
2.Silva 14 W
3. Radke 11 W

Merry X-mas

mweflen
12-20-2004, 04:23 PM
I'm talking about PLAYOFF TEAMS... Think about it...Who were the Dodgers, Braves, Red Sox, Angels, Yankees, Twins, and Cardinals third starters and what were their records?

I don't want to take 2nd but what do you mean I'm satisfied/not satisfied with it? What am I going to do? be fairweather?

But maybe I should spit and moan and ignore the facts on a message board...that will enact change AND HOW!Third Starter for Atlanta: Mike Hampton, 13-9
Third Starter for Minnesota: Carlos Silva, 14-8
Third Starter for St. Louis: Matt Morris, 15-10
Third Starter for New York: Jon Lieber, 14-8
Third Starter for Boston: Derek Lowe, 14-12
Third Starter for Anaheim: Jarrod Washburn, 11-8
Third Starter for LA: Kaz Ishii 13-8
Third Starter for Houston: Andy Pettite/Wade Miller, 13-11

See any differences between Winning teams, and the Sox?

I repeat, take your homework and shove it.

Mickster
12-20-2004, 04:24 PM
here: I'll do it for you -

Based on Wins:

Yankees:

1.Jon Lieber - 14 W
2.Javier Vazquez - 14 W
3.Mike Mussina - 12 W

Red Sox:

1.Schilling - 21 W
2. Pedro - 16 W
3. Lowe - 14 W

Atlanta

1. Wright 15 W
2. Ortiz 15 W
3. Thomson 14 W

Angels

1. Colon 18 W
2. Lackey 14 W
3. Escobar 11 W

Dodgers

Weaver, Lima, and Ishii each had 13

Twins

1.Santana 20 W
2.Silva 14 W
3. Radke 11 W

Merry X-masI think I had this discussion with No. 2 in the not-so-distant past. No. 2 correctly, I might add, indicated that a playoff team needs about 75 wins from their SP staff. Regardless of what their #1, #2, #3 pitchers did, for example. Every team, sans the Twins, achieved that milestone. The Sox, if I am not mistaken, only had 61 wins from their starting staff.

Ol' No. 2
12-20-2004, 04:25 PM
As would I, but you would expect the same from your #2 nonetheless, 15-18 wins right? Do you expect any more from Freddy in '05?You're missing the point. The issue is certainty (or confidence, if you will). You might have expected 15-18 wins from Loaiza last year, but based on his record, how confident were you? I have a lot higher degree of confidence in Garcia reaching that level than I did of Loaiza. To suggest that Loaiza=Garcia just because you may have expected something more from Loaiza strikes me as ludicrous.

mweflen
12-20-2004, 04:27 PM
:tomatoaward GraaaaRRRR!!!! Hulk Smash Tomato!!!! :angry:


:smile:

Mickster
12-20-2004, 04:28 PM
You're missing the point. The issue is certainty (or confidence, if you will). You might have expected 15-18 wins from Loaiza last year, but based on his record, how confident were you? I have a lot higher degree of confidence in Garcia reaching that level than I did of Loaiza. To suggest that Loaiza=Garcia just because you may have expected something more from Loaiza strikes me as ludicrous.That is what they [the Sox] are feeding us. Unfortunately, I ate it. I did expect Loaiza to win 15-18 last year and I do expect the same from Freddy. You might not agree but that was not the premise of my posts. As we sit here today with Freddy, Buehrle, Contreras, Garland and Grilli, we will fall short of making the playoffs for the fourth straight year.

That was the premise of my initial post.

Ol' No. 2
12-20-2004, 04:33 PM
That is what they [the Sox] are feeding us. Unfortunately, I ate it. I did expect Loaiza to win 15-18 last year and I do expect the same from Freddy. You might not agree but that was not the premise of my posts. As we sit here today with Freddy, Buehrle, Contreras, Garland and Grilli, we will fall short of making the playoffs for the fourth straight year.

That was the premise of my initial post.If you're suggesting that the rotation you listed is not likely to be division-winner material, I'd have to agree, although you never know. But what you seemed to be saying is that they aren't better than 2003. I definately disagree with that.

steff
12-20-2004, 04:39 PM
Ok, I meant Loaiza for Contreras, Jose was cheaper. The quotes were all
over the place, saying they had to "reduce payroll" in order to "add players".
This was a Guise. They were quick to reduce the payroll, now they WONT
add any players. SO if all adds up correctly, the SOX will have CUT PAYROLL
in essence.

Jose is not cheaper than Loaiza was.

You're not going to find me a quote, are you... :rolleyes:

:wink:

steff
12-20-2004, 04:41 PM
Steff,

I normally appreciate your optimism, but signing Loaiza does not really do much for our starting rotation. Most of us, had hoped for an improved starting rotation.

Garcia, Buehrle, Contreras, Garland, and Loaiza = 2 good pitchers and 3 no. 5 starters (OK, maybe Contreras is a #4). This will hardly get the job done.

Kenny clearly stated in his C. Lee trade video conference his number 1 priority was solidifying one of the top starting rotations in the AL. We're all standing by watching the remaining good pitchers sign with other teams. It may only be 12/20, but Perez and Millwood are all that's left and they are both a downgrade from Pavano, Clement, Lieber, Pedro, and Jaret Wright. If (and likely when) these 2 sign with another team, Kenny will be limited to upgrading the SP via a trade, which will likely cost as Garland. I'm not a FOJG, but he's a serviceable #5 starter. Any trade for Vazquez or any other SP will likely result in the same hole in the #5 spot.

I want to be excited about '05, but Kenny keeps making it very difficult... and I consider myself a FOKW.

:(:
I was being a bit facetious.. and agree with your concerns 100%. It will not surprise me when Loaiza is wearing a Sox uni again.. :cool:

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 04:51 PM
Third Starter for Atlanta: Mike Hampton, 13-9
Third Starter for Minnesota: Carlos Silva, 14-8
Third Starter for St. Louis: Matt Morris, 15-10
Third Starter for New York: Jon Lieber, 14-8
Third Starter for Boston: Derek Lowe, 14-12
Third Starter for Anaheim: Jarrod Washburn, 11-8
Third Starter for LA: Kaz Ishii 13-8
Third Starter for Houston: Andy Pettite/Wade Miller, 13-11

See any differences between Winning teams, and the Sox?

I repeat, take your homework and shove it.
Look at ERA numbers on Hampton, Morris, Lowe, and Lieber and compare them to Garland.

Now get rid of your Minnesota argument since Radke, the alleged number 2 won 11 games

Now admit that Jarrod Washburn's and Kaz Ishii's W/L numbers were not much better than Garland's and what do you have?

Houston.

thedudeabides
12-20-2004, 04:59 PM
Look at ERA numbers on Hampton, Morris, Lowe, and Lieber and compare them to Garland.

Now get rid of your Minnesota argument since Radke, the alleged number 2 won 11 games

Now admit that Jarrod Washburn's and Kaz Ishii's W/L numbers were not much better than Garland's and what do you have?

Houston.
These teams may have similar 4 and 5 starters, but I think they have better lineups, defense, bullpen.

mweflen
12-20-2004, 05:00 PM
Look at ERA numbers on Hampton, Morris, Lowe, and Lieber and compare them to Garland.

Now get rid of your Minnesota argument since Radke, the alleged number 2 won 11 games

Now admit that Jarrod Washburn's and Kaz Ishii's W/L numbers were not much better than Garland's and what do you have?

Houston.
You're right, the ERA's are certainly all over the place for these starters. But ERA is only one facet of a pitcher's performance. You can have a 4.00 ERA guy who always gives up the big hit in a 3-3 tie win fewer games than the 5.00 ERA guy who is steady and doesn't serve up gopher balls.

The win-loss statistics speak for themselves. Garland is just not in the class that these guys are, whether it's my list or yours.

For the Sox to compete with these teams, they need to strengthen their rotation. Kenny told us he was dumping salary to do so. So far, he has not done so. And almost everyone seems to be gone.

Why shouldn't I feel gypped again?

NardiWasHere
12-20-2004, 05:02 PM
If there is one thing that this board illustrates about Sox fans is that there is a large camp of Sox fans with this view:
1. Extremely Pessimistic: Nothing that the team does changes their views. Every glass is half-empty. Every trade/signing has some alterior motive behind it. What's with all the conspiracy theories? "JR has plotted to cut the payroll by trading for Podsednik and planning the assasination of The Big Hurt". Some of you sound like the guy with a megaphone who walks down Michigan Ave. and tells tourists Al Gore was abducted by communist spies (although this guy is waaay more entertaining). As a Sox fan, I have my reservations every year- we all do, thats what seperates us from the cub fans- but to go to this extreme just because of your opinion of JR, is ridiculous.

The fact that someone would say the rotation is similar in talent compared to last year's (let alone equal) makes no sense to me. Just because two pitchers are slated as your #2's do not make them equal. The guys in the 3-4 slots are knocked down one and plus, Garcia is more of a safe bet. Plus, perez is still on the market.... You all need to relax....

fquaye149
12-20-2004, 06:39 PM
The win-loss statistics speak for themselves.
well there is the epitome of the mweflen argument right there.

Chisox003
12-20-2004, 06:43 PM
:rwhite: <<<<<Ha ha ha

infohawk
12-20-2004, 06:56 PM
And what is obvious is that Williams didn't have a firm plan and the trade with Mil was primarily a salary dump
I think KW has a plan for the team. General managers can't always just assume that certain players must be acquired for their plan to be executed successfully. There are too many other teams looking for many of the same things, and most general managers would be considered failures if they were judged on whether or not they had a high success rate of obtaining all of the specific names they would like to acquire. I think general managers look to acquire certain kinds of players that exhibit desirable traits. If KW goes for a particular player and comes up short, he probably follows a progression to acquire whomever the organization believes is the next best player.

I'll freely admit that the Sox don't often acquire marquee superstar players, and are often outbid for the services of other top players. For better or for worse, however, KW is given a payroll amount and probably considers a player acquisition strategy successful if the acquisitions fill the team's holes with players that fit into the overall baseball philosophy of the organization.

mweflen
12-21-2004, 09:27 AM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20041220&content_id=924524&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp




"I'm disappointed (Schoeneweis) and his agent did not accept the offer," Cooper said of the left-hander, who is represented by Scott Boras. "I wanted another crack at trying to see what we could do with him as a starter. "If he signs the deal, he's our fifth guy. I just hope now he can get the same opportunity somewhere else as a starter. He might be able to get more than was offered, but he might have to go to the bullpen.


Kenny's got something planned, indeed. Like 83 more wins this year?

Mickster
12-21-2004, 09:28 AM
Kenny's got something planned, indeed. Like 83 more wins this year?Should that be in DEEP PINK????

mweflen
12-21-2004, 09:35 AM
Should that be in DEEP PINK????
Maybe so... the point is, all those apologists in this thread and others have a lot of crow to start eating.

I hope Kenny proves me wrong, but I sincerely doubt it.

If they sign Pierzynski and Eckstein, it will soften the blow of a weak rotation somewhat by fleshing out the lineup. I might even have a shred of optimism. But as it stands now, I don't see us improving over last year's showing.

wdelaney72
12-21-2004, 09:37 AM
I agree that our rotation is improved over last year. Garcia is WAY better than Loaiza, even after Loaiza's big year.

The problem is the SP may be better, but it's not SIGNIFFICANTLY better. As is it stands now, it's not good enough to be a playoff team.
Meanwhile, we're all seeing quality SP signing with every other team EXCEPT the White Sox.

Lip Man 1
12-21-2004, 11:01 AM
I'd be curious to see what the payroll is right now. I'd be willing to bet it's less then last year even with arbitration raises and signings.

It's nice to know that the Sox have said they have money for a deal in July. The problem is if they don't figure out a way to fill gaping holes at the back end of the rotation, catcher, 2nd base and potentially the bullpen (hey they still are figuring on having Adkins and Cotts in there!) then it won't matter if they have money for July.

The run a real risk of being so far out of it, that they will be sellers instead of buyers. Then what does having all the money available do?

Nothing.....except draw interest in Uncle Jerry's bank account.

Lip

Hangar18
12-21-2004, 12:47 PM
I'd be curious to see what the payroll is right now. I'd be willing to bet it's less then last year even with arbitration raises and signings.

It's nice to know that the Sox have said they have money for a deal in July. The problem is if they don't figure out a way to fill gaping holes at the back end of the rotation, catcher, 2nd base and potentially the bullpen (hey they still are figuring on having Adkins and Cotts in there!) then it won't matter if they have money for July.

The run a real risk of being so far out of it, that they will be sellers instead of buyers. Then what does having all the money available do?

Nothing.....except draw interest in Uncle Jerry's bank account.

LipLIP, when the best pitchers started signing elsewhere, and the SOX hadnt
made any serious offers to ANY of them, including Carl Pavano, and Kenny was talking about "seeing how the market plays out" (read: let all the good players sign elsewhere) I knew what was going on.
Also, seeing as our HOLES were Starting Pitcher, and Bullpen, and we
were Signing Jermaine Dye, I knew we were in trouble. Still havnt
addressed the Pitcher/Bullpen Problems (problems since last year mind you)

Uncle Jerrys plan is brilliant. He is purposely putting a bad team out
there, so that in JULY they WONT HAVE TO ADD PLAYERS .....

Hangar18
12-21-2004, 12:56 PM
You're right, the ERA's are certainly all over the place for these starters. But ERA is only one facet of a pitcher's performance. You can have a 4.00 ERA guy who always gives up the big hit in a 3-3 tie win fewer games than the 5.00 ERA guy who is steady and doesn't serve up gopher balls.

The win-loss statistics speak for themselves. Garland is just not in the class that these guys are, whether it's my list or yours.

For the Sox to compete with these teams, they need to strengthen their rotation. Kenny told us he was dumping salary to do so. So far, he has not done so. And almost everyone seems to be gone.

Why shouldn't I feel gypped again?
Im not in Agreement with some of your feelings, but your 3rd Starter List
is Excellent. and I Agree. We Need to STRENGHTHEN THE ROTATION.
Something thats been IGNORED since the 2000 season, when everyone went down with injuries. Kenny saying hes dumping salary, is merely to dump
salary. then he'll say "noones around anymore" or better yet "Lets wait til July and see where we are at". Bogus way to run your team.
Hello 2006.

anewman35
12-21-2004, 12:57 PM
Also, seeing as our HOLES were Starting Pitcher, and Bullpen, and we
were Signing Jermaine Dye, I knew we were in trouble. Still havnt
addressed the Pitcher/Bullpen Problems (problems since last year mind you)


Wait wait wait. You don't think Jermaine Dye filled a hole? Who were you planning on playing in right field?

Also, last I checked, the Sox have two new pretty good relievers. Doesn't that at least begin to address the problem?

OEO Magglio
12-21-2004, 01:07 PM
LIP, when the best pitchers started signing elsewhere, and the SOX hadnt
made any serious offers to ANY of them, including Carl Pavano, and Kenny was talking about "seeing how the market plays out" (read: let all the good players sign elsewhere) I knew what was going on.
Also, seeing as our HOLES were Starting Pitcher, and Bullpen, and we
were Signing Jermaine Dye, I knew we were in trouble. Still havnt
addressed the Pitcher/Bullpen Problems (problems since last year mind you)

Uncle Jerrys plan is brilliant. He is purposely putting a bad team out
there, so that in JULY they WONT HAVE TO ADD PLAYERS .....
Are you joking hangar?? The sox have one of the deepest and best bullpens in the league right now.

Hangar18
12-21-2004, 01:13 PM
Wait wait wait. You don't think Jermaine Dye filled a hole? Who were you planning on playing in right field?

Also, last I checked, the Sox have two new pretty good relievers. Doesn't that at least begin to address the problem?
Replacing your Jaguar with a Chevy ???
Also, last I checked, the SOX had a pretty good relievers Flash Gordon a couple years ago, Im sure you heard of him. They promptly replaced him
with a CHEAPER Mike Jackson, thus Creating a New Hole in the Bullpen.
So for the SOX to have FIXED a problem they themselves created a Year
Earlier.....
isnt cause for Celebration or Kudos

Hangar18
12-21-2004, 01:15 PM
Are you joking hangar?? The sox have one of the deepest and best bullpens in the league right now.
Sure we do ....... and we had a Pretty darned good bullpen a couple yrs ago
too, we just let all the guys go that were making $$$$$$$, created a hole,
wasted an Entire season, then realized we needed to upgrade the bullpen again.
Thats Smart Baseball.

anewman35
12-21-2004, 01:19 PM
Replacing your Jaguar with a Chevy ???
Also, last I checked, the SOX had a pretty good relievers Flash Gordon a couple years ago, Im sure you heard of him. They promptly replaced him
with a CHEAPER Mike Jackson, thus Creating a New Hole in the Bullpen.
So for the SOX to have FIXED a problem they themselves created a Year
Earlier.....
isnt cause for Celebration or Kudos
Where to start...

1. The White Sox had very little choice but to let Magglio go, and they had to fill the hole somehow. Would you have rather started Borchard?

2. The Yankees gave Flash a huge contract. Even JR haters can't think the White Sox should match every Yankees contract.

3. IIRC, Politte was intended as a replacement for Gordon, not Mike Jackson.

4. So, what, if have a decent player, then lose that player, then a year later get another decent player, that doesn't count as an upgrade? The Sox created their hole in their rotation themselves by not resigning Bartolo Colon and David Wells! Even if they sign somebody new, it doesn't count as upgrading, because it's their own fault. At least they got Freddy Garcia to fill that hole they created when they lost Jack McDowell.

anewman35
12-21-2004, 01:21 PM
Sure we do ....... and we had a Pretty darned good bullpen a couple yrs ago
too, we just let all the guys go that were making $$$$$$$, created a hole,
wasted an Entire season, then realized we needed to upgrade the bullpen again.
Thats Smart Baseball.
You're not making any sense. You said "Also, seeing as our HOLES were Starting Pitcher, and Bullpen, and we
were Signing Jermaine Dye, I knew we were in trouble. Still havnt
addressed the Pitcher/Bullpen Problems (problems since last year mind you)". We're not talking about 4 years ago or 3 years ago or 2 years ago. We're talking about last year (because YOU used the phrase last year). Our bullpen is upgraded from last year. What are you trying to say?

Hangar18
12-21-2004, 01:25 PM
Wait wait wait. You don't think Jermaine Dye filled a hole? Who were you planning on playing in right field?

Dont get me wrong. Jermaine Dye fills a hole. Barely. But then Trading away your Other most productive Outfielder now COMPOUNDS the problem.

Our Outfield just got a lot Worse offensively........ But a little Faster .......


:reinsy " And dont forget CHEAPER Hangar ! Our outfield just got CHEAPER muah haha haha hahah, Muah haha hahah"

Hangar18
12-21-2004, 01:31 PM
Still havnt
addressed the Pitcher/Bullpen Problems (problems since last year mind you)". We're not talking about 4 years ago or 3 years ago or 2 years ago. We're talking about last year (because YOU used the phrase last year). Our bullpen is upgraded from last year. What are you trying to say?
Im saying, the SOX Foolishly let good players go, Took their chances on
Way Cheaper Players, Rolled the dice, and when an entire season passed,
Decide to Fill the Holes. Filling a Hole you yourself created a year earlier, then Ignored doesnt count in my book. Our bullpen shouldnt have had to been "upgraded" in the first place is what Im saying. We couldve instead
been upgrading the outfield, the Starting Pitcher situation. This team
gets bogged down filling the holes they created because they WONT Pay
to Keep players, or Sign Players that can help them.

Hangar18
12-21-2004, 01:43 PM
Where to start...
2. The Yankees gave Flash a huge contract. Even JR haters can't think the White Sox should match every Yankees contract.

3. IIRC, Politte was intended as a replacement for Gordon, not Mike Jackson.

4. So, what, if have a decent player, then lose that player, then a year later get another decent player, that doesn't count as an upgrade?


2) the Yankees gave him a huge deal. OK, then replace the guy with someone As Good or ....get this ....BETTER than the player you lost.
Not Get a Worse Player (read: CHEAPER)

4) If you lose a player, FINE. Replace with Similar or Better Player. Not
a Worse (read: Cheaper) Player. And Replace the Player IMMEDIATELY,
do not Roll-the-dice and HOPE the guy pans out Thus Wasting an entire
season (chris snopek, billy koch, royce clayton, chris sabo, etc etc etc)

anewman35
12-21-2004, 01:53 PM
2) the Yankees gave him a huge deal. OK, then replace the guy with someone As Good or ....get this ....BETTER than the player you lost.
Not Get a Worse Player (read: CHEAPER)

They basically ended up replacing Gordon with Shingo. That's as good or better, right?

Hitmen77
12-21-2004, 02:12 PM
Stop me before I jump!!!
:thud:
Hey, green seats are coming! Come down from that bridge and celebrate!

mweflen
12-21-2004, 02:21 PM
Hey, green seats are coming! Come down from that bridge and celebrate!
Yes, while I admire my green seat, I will be able to look away from the field and momentarily ignore that holes at 5 spot, catcher, second...

steff
12-21-2004, 02:21 PM
Oh geez.. you started on the egg nog a bit early today, H.... :?:

tstrike2000
12-21-2004, 02:23 PM
The 2004 Oakland A's did not have Miguel Tejada or Juicer Giambi in their lineup, which is about a loss of 65-70 HR's a year and still almost won the AL West. It comes down to pitching which obviously we've addressed here in the forums. If another proven starter does not sign with us and we don't get Eckstein or Cora, then I'd start to panic.

Hitmen77
12-21-2004, 02:35 PM
Oh geez.. you started on the egg nog a bit early today, H.... :?:
No egg nog yet. Please note the teal in my post.

steff
12-21-2004, 02:56 PM
No egg nog yet. Please note the teal in my post.
I was talking to Henry.. :D:

wassagstdu
12-21-2004, 06:00 PM
Call me crazy, but I really like what I see Ozzie and KW doing with this team. It's been so long and so painful that when the Sox win I want to see it done in the right way. Not by pasting together a bunch of overpaid jerks with attitude for a year, but by putting together a team. That means, for the Sox, trading some DH's for speed and defense, and doing it with young players who will be around for a while without tying up $50 MM. Have they succeeded in doing that yet? No, I guess not. But I applaud them for trying.

Life could be worse. We could be signing Pedro Martinez for way too much money, or going after Sammy Sosa, for example.

Rebuilding is fun -- if it is being done right. It is more fun than winning it all, then watching the whole thing disintegrate, as in 1959/Veeck. I mean, 1956 was more fun than 1959, looking back. In baseball, as in life, happiness depends on the direction of change more than on the absolute position.

In another thread people are describing their favorite Sox memories, and they are mostly single-game things of the kind that even the Royals can produce from time to time. That is the beauty of baseball: It is NOT all about winning it all.

delben91
12-21-2004, 07:19 PM
Call me crazy, but I really like what I see Ozzie and KW doing with this team. It's been so long and so painful that when the Sox win I want to see it done in the right way. Not by pasting together a bunch of overpaid jerks with attitude for a year, but by putting together a team. That means, for the Sox, trading some DH's for speed and defense, and doing it with young players who will be around for a while without tying up $50 MM. Have they succeeded in doing that yet? No, I guess not. But I applaud them for trying.

Life could be worse. We could be signing Pedro Martinez for way too much money, or going after Sammy Sosa, for example.

Rebuilding is fun -- if it is being done right. It is more fun than winning it all, then watching the whole thing disintegrate, as in 1959/Veeck. I mean, 1956 was more fun than 1959, looking back. In baseball, as in life, happiness depends on the direction of change more than on the absolute position.

In another thread people are describing their favorite Sox memories, and they are mostly single-game things of the kind that even the Royals can produce from time to time. That is the beauty of baseball: It is NOT all about winning it all.
Couldn't agree more.