PDA

View Full Version : Will SOX gnash teeth over NOT drafting Joe Blanton?


Hangar18
01-26-2005, 02:44 PM
I got to thinking about this reading the Billy Beane thread and his relationship
with the White Sox. Randar and some of the other minor-league
experts can help with this .........

Randar68
01-26-2005, 03:00 PM
I got to thinking about this reading the Billy Beane thread and his relationship
with the White Sox. Randar and some of the other minor-league
experts can help with this .........

What do you mean by "Gnash teeth?" Do they regret it considering his development WRT Royce Ring? Maybe. Would they have traded him somewhere along the way? Quite possibly. Are they going to live in the past? Nah, that's what the FOBB do. I'm sure they've moved on with their lives but I'm also sure the way Lewis' book portrayed Beane's dealings with KW did nothing to enhance their working relationship...

Baby Fisk
01-26-2005, 03:03 PM
Sorry for not knowing, but what's a Joe Blanton?

santo=dorf
01-26-2005, 03:09 PM
:whocares


If the Sox drafted him and he pitched for the Sox like he did with the A's last season, you'd be bitching how the Sox were going with a CHEAPER replacement over Bartolo Colon for their 5th starter.

ja1022
01-26-2005, 03:12 PM
Sorry for not knowing, but what's a Joe Blanton?

I think he makes bourbon... http://www.blantonsbourbon.com/

Baby Fisk
01-26-2005, 03:16 PM
I think he makes bourbon... http://www.blantonsbourbon.com/
Forget about gnashing teeth, I'm all for wetting one's whistle. :cool:

Ol' No. 2
01-26-2005, 03:23 PM
Forget about gnashing teeth, I'm all for wetting one's whistle. :cool:I'll drink to that.:gulp:

Fungo
01-26-2005, 04:52 PM
Are 29 other teams Gnashing their teeth for passing on Mark Buehrle for 38 rounds?

The MLB baseball draft....one of the biggest crap-shoots there is.

ChiWhiteSox1337
01-26-2005, 05:06 PM
I'm no expert at all, but I checked his minor league #s last season and he had an ERA above 4. That's not exactly good IMO for someone as hyped up as he is to replace one of the big 3. The only reason why I checked was because of all the hype I heard from FOBBs.

NonetheLoaiza
01-26-2005, 05:07 PM
If the Sox gnashed their teeth over every player that they didn't draft, why even bother drafting? Like it was said, the draft can be a crapshoot. You pick who you like and can hopefully contribute to the club down the road. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I don't think Kenny regrets his decision not to draft him. Moneyball was written from a certain point of view, not each point of view.

gosox41
01-27-2005, 08:17 AM
What do you mean by "Gnash teeth?" Do they regret it considering his development WRT Royce Ring? Maybe. Would they have traded him somewhere along the way? Quite possibly. Are they going to live in the past? Nah, that's what the FOBB do. I'm sure they've moved on with their lives but I'm also sure the way Lewis' book portrayed Beane's dealings with KW did nothing to enhance their working relationship...

Hopefully KW learns from the past.



Bob

gosox41
01-27-2005, 08:20 AM
Are 29 other teams Gnashing their teeth for passing on Mark Buehrle for 38 rounds?

The MLB baseball draft....one of the biggest crap-shoots there is.

The draft is a crap shoot, but there is a big difference in teams not drafting a pitcher for 38 rounds and wasting a mid-first round pick on a relief pitcher.


Bob

BigEdWalsh
01-27-2005, 09:02 AM
:woo-woo Woo! Kids, don't gnash your teeth!! Woo!

TDog
01-27-2005, 11:30 AM
Forget Blanton. I haven't recovered from the Sox drafting Dan Haynes over Vida Blue in 1967.

chaz171
01-28-2005, 01:32 PM
Another 88 years of misery because we don't have Joe Blanton

CWSGuy406
01-29-2005, 01:25 PM
If the Sox gnashed their teeth over every player that they didn't draft, why even bother drafting? Like it was said, the draft can be a crapshoot. You pick who you like and can hopefully contribute to the club down the road. Hindsight is always 20/20, but I don't think Kenny regrets his decision not to draft him. Moneyball was written from a certain point of view, not each point of view.

No, this isn't about hindsight and junk like that.

It's about taking a starting pitcher -- a concensus (sp?) pick, an obvious pick, a kid with pretty darn good stuff -- over a closer.

I don't plan on living in the past, but it was a stupid pick by Kenny. I appreciate what Kenny has brought to the table, but that (and the Ritchie trade) make me a little angry.

chaz171
01-29-2005, 01:36 PM
No, this isn't about hindsight and junk like that.



Perhaps a Little Clarity here.

If we are in the Present Discussing something in the Past that could make the future better.....

THAT IS HINDSIGHT!

Fungo
01-29-2005, 08:53 PM
The draft is a crap shoot, but there is a big difference in teams not drafting a pitcher for 38 rounds and wasting a mid-first round pick on a relief pitcher.


Bob

Yet, no mention of Huston Street, the consensus top closer in this years draft, whom the A's selected in the first round, albeit, the supplemental first round.

SoxSpeed22
01-29-2005, 09:01 PM
"The Draft has never been anything but a ******* crapshoot, we take fifty guys and we celebrate if two of them make it. In what other business is two for fifty a success? If you did that in the stock market, you'd go broke" -Billy Beane

gosox41
01-30-2005, 08:43 AM
Perhaps a Little Clarity here.

If we are in the Present Discussing something in the Past that could make the future better.....

THAT IS HINDSIGHT!

But is it hindsight if I said the same thing back in '02 when the draft occured?:D:

I didn't like the idea of drafting a reliever then and I don't now. And if KW drafts a reliever in the first round of the '05 draft I'll rip him to shreds here again. Do I get credit with forseight there?

I stand by my position that Ring was a wasted first round pick in'02. It's good that they traded him. But in reality, he wasn't drafted to be traded right away. He was drafted for being a good reliever (though still not worth of a first round pick) who was cheap and was relatively close to making an impact in the majors.

Most relievers in the majors are failed starters. Guys that were drafted as starters and couldn't cut it. There are exceptions of course (Gregg Olson) but in most cases a mid-first round pick should be spent on an everyday player or a starting pitcher. Nothing wrong with drafting a reliever later on in the draft, but it seems foolish to waste that amount of money on a guy you hope is going to give you 70 IP per season.




Bob

gosox41
01-30-2005, 08:49 AM
Yet, no mention of Huston Street, the consensus top closer in this years draft, whom the A's selected in the first round, albeit, the supplemental first round.




It probably was a wasted pick. Not saying Street doesn't have potential but IMHO I'd take my chances on an everyday player or starting pitcher early in the draft.

But the later in the draft a releiver is taken, the more it can be justified. There's a difference in wasting a pcik that was the 17th in the nation (I think that's when the Sox picked in '02) to someone who was picked 40th in the nation. 40th pick constitutes a supplemental pick, but it is a later pick then 17.


BTW, do you happen to know what Huston Street signed for? I couldn't find it anywhere.



Bob

eastchicagosoxfan
01-30-2005, 04:58 PM
It's rare to draft McDowell, Ventura, Thomas, and Fernandez every year. Look at Brien Taylor. He's the poster boy, and it's not a reflection on him, of a first rounder gone bust. Or Todd Von Poppel. Back when he was drafted, much more was expected from him than what his career has produced. Or Odibe McDowell. Ron Blomberg. Bill Gulickson was drafted between Baines and Molitor. The list is endless.

Fungo
01-31-2005, 08:47 AM
It probably was a wasted pick. Not saying Street doesn't have potential but IMHO I'd take my chances on an everyday player or starting pitcher early in the draft.

But the later in the draft a releiver is taken, the more it can be justified. There's a difference in wasting a pcik that was the 17th in the nation (I think that's when the Sox picked in '02) to someone who was picked 40th in the nation. 40th pick constitutes a supplemental pick, but it is a later pick then 17.


BTW, do you happen to know what Huston Street signed for? I couldn't find it anywhere.



Bob

$800,000, Ring got $1,600,000

Dadawg_77
01-31-2005, 11:32 AM
"The Draft has never been anything but a ******* crapshoot, we take fifty guys and we celebrate if two of them make it. In what other business is two for fifty a success? If you did that in the stock market, you'd go broke" -Billy Beane

Do you know what this quote means? It means teams performance in drafts are not good and needs to be improved. The status quo of drafting guys just based on scout's 80/20 ratings needs to redone with newer and better info to improve that track record.

gosox41
01-31-2005, 12:25 PM
$800,000, Ring got $1,600,000

Thanks for the info.


Funny how the Sox have passed on proven relievers for that amount of money but have no problem giving it to a reliever taken in the draft.


Bob

chaz171
01-31-2005, 12:58 PM
But is it hindsight if I said the same thing back in '02 when the draft occured?:D:

I didn't like the idea of drafting a reliever then and I don't now. And if KW drafts a reliever in the first round of the '05 draft I'll rip him to shreds here again. Do I get credit with forseight there?

I stand by my position that Ring was a wasted first round pick in'02. It's good that they traded him. But in reality, he wasn't drafted to be traded right away. He was drafted for being a good reliever (though still not worth of a first round pick) who was cheap and was relatively close to making an impact in the majors.

Most relievers in the majors are failed starters. Guys that were drafted as starters and couldn't cut it. There are exceptions of course (Gregg Olson) but in most cases a mid-first round pick should be spent on an everyday player or a starting pitcher. Nothing wrong with drafting a reliever later on in the draft, but it seems foolish to waste that amount of money on a guy you hope is going to give you 70 IP per season.




Bob


With Relievers, IP is not the key stat.

With a Closer, it is saves.
With a middle reliever it is holds or inherited runners scored.
Back in the Dead ball era when guys threw 400 innings, I guess that a reliever would be a wasted pick, but when an average starter is going 6-7 innings (190ip 30 starts= 6 1/3ip per start) set up and Closing becomes prominant.

ten Blown saves can cost you a pennant. time has priven this claim.

gosox41
01-31-2005, 01:23 PM
With Relievers, IP is not the key stat.

With a Closer, it is saves.
With a middle reliever it is holds or inherited runners scored.
Back in the Dead ball era when guys threw 400 innings, I guess that a reliever would be a wasted pick, but when an average starter is going 6-7 innings (190ip 30 starts= 6 1/3ip per start) set up and Closing becomes prominant.

ten Blown saves can cost you a pennant. time has priven this claim.

Actually saves is a very useless stat IMHO. When I meant a reliever pitching 70 IP a season (or more) I meant it more as a sign that he is an effective reliever. This means not allowig a lot of inherited base runners to score or giving up many hits/walks.


Bob

chaz171
01-31-2005, 02:10 PM
Actually saves is a very useless stat IMHO. When I meant a reliever pitching 70 IP a season (or more) I meant it more as a sign that he is an effective reliever. This means not allowig a lot of inherited base runners to score or giving up many hits/walks.


Bob


Well, For someone to pontificate that Saves are useless stats is all very well and good.

If you really want to be specific the Win is the only meaningful stat there is. everything else is just BS, heresay and useless.

Whithout creating a stat holy war let me propose a hypatheical situation.....

if there was a chance to get a Gagne from the dodgers on your team, would turn him down to keep jon garland simply because gagne can't pitch 200 innings?

My logic is although you need starters to get to the relievers, garland won 36 games in the last three seasons while pitching 601 1/3 innings

Gagne had 152 saves but only pitched 247 innings. 152 saves is 152 wins for the team he is pitching for.

If save is a useless stat then why is there such a what-to-do about closers in MLB? if saves didn't matter, we'd still have Billy Koch on our roster because he sure didn't have too many of them...he must believe they are a useless stat too....

gosox41
02-01-2005, 08:17 AM
Well, For someone to pontificate that Saves are useless stats is all very well and good.

If you really want to be specific the Win is the only meaningful stat there is. everything else is just BS, heresay and useless.

Whithout creating a stat holy war let me propose a hypatheical situation.....

if there was a chance to get a Gagne from the dodgers on your team, would turn him down to keep jon garland simply because gagne can't pitch 200 innings?

My logic is although you need starters to get to the relievers, garland won 36 games in the last three seasons while pitching 601 1/3 innings

Gagne had 152 saves but only pitched 247 innings. 152 saves is 152 wins for the team he is pitching for.

If save is a useless stat then why is there such a what-to-do about closers in MLB? if saves didn't matter, we'd still have Billy Koch on our roster because he sure didn't have too many of them...he must believe they are a useless stat too....


I would take Gagne over Garland.



Of course I’d take an elite closer over a #4-5 starter who at his best is a #3 starter, even if he dos pitch 200 IP. But I would take a #1 or #2 starter over an elite closer day of the week for the reason that he is going to put up good numbers for a lot more innints.



The best ways to measure a pitcher are in K, BB, K/9 K/BB ratio,WHIP, and BAA.



Saves are the net result of dong those tings well. The saves stat is overrated. Through the years it has been easier and easier for relievers to get saves. Back in the ‘70’s closer had to pitch more 2-3 innings to get a save more then once in a while. Today, most closers get what I call cheap saves. These are saves where they’re brought in with a lead, none out and none on , in the 9th inning and need to get 3 outs.



IMHO, it’s a lot tougher for a reliever to come in the 7th or 8th inning with less then 2 out, a runner on second, and the 3-4-5 hitters coming up. That’s more worthy of a ‘save’ if a pitcher can pitch out of that while maintaining the lead.





Billy Koch is one of my favorite subjects. I don’t know if you posted here when the trade was made but I was adamantly against it. People actually defended that trade by saying Koch had 44 saves in ’02 and Foulke didn’t. Foulke had comparable or better numbers in every statistical category then Koch. The only difference was Manuel wouldn’t let Foulke get the final 3 outs of the game. Many here said he couldn’t handle the pressure of the clsoers role. Looks like he handled it fine in ’03 and ’04 in a lot more pressure situations then the Sox have been in lately.



There’s a ‘what-to-do- over closers for different reasons. Most are the best relievers statistically on the team. Most are also power pitchers. People like speed. Saves is a stat that fans can easily keep track of and the rules for getting one have loosened over the years.



Bob

chaz171
02-01-2005, 09:41 AM
I will take it that the Save is overrated for sure.......we can agree on that....


Enough Said on this Subject........


Thanks for the Insight