PDA

View Full Version : Back to square one with Contreras


hose
03-30-2005, 06:22 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050329soxbits,1,6951728.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Worse case scenario is the Sox have a #5 that can at least go .500. The guy is either dominating or getting bombed.:?:

I'm very disappointed to read this after hearing Coop say that Jose was doing outstanding just last week.

gosox41
03-30-2005, 08:19 AM
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050329soxbits,1,6951728.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Worse case scenario is the Sox have a #5 that can at least go .500. The guy is either dominating or getting bombed.:?:

I'm very disappointed to read this after hearing Coop say that Jose was doing outstanding just last week.

Contreras better get it together soon. KW has been very high on him saying that on talent alone he shuold win 14-15 games and that the Sox have been working with him to correct flaws to take him to the next level.


Bob

Iguana775
03-30-2005, 08:19 AM
i sure hope that Coop can fix him.

also, i noticed that Borchard will be sent down.

wdelaney72
03-30-2005, 08:41 AM
Contreras is in his mid 30's, these are the same problems he has faced since he came to MLB. He's not going to get any better. What we've seen from him is what we're going to get this year, and that is inconsistency.

As much as I'm a FOKW, this will go down as one of his not-so-good moves, considering we're wasting $6 million a year on this guy. $6 million a year could have been spent more wisely on another pitcher.

This guy is more frustrating than Garland. All the stuff in the world and nothing upstairs.

owensmouth
03-30-2005, 09:04 AM
As much as I'm a FOKW, this will go down as one of his not-so-good moves, considering we're wasting $6 million a year on this guy. $6 million a year could have been spent more wisely on another pitcher.



Williams is just a lousy judge of pitching talent. By making the trade that brought Countreras to the Sox, he obligated the team to 12 million dollars in payments to a slug. Oh well, when he cuts Frank at the end of the year he can use the money saved to pay the second year of the debt.

DaveIsHere
03-30-2005, 09:16 AM
Williams is just a lousy judge of pitching talent. By making the trade that brought Countreras to the Sox, he obligated the team to 12 million dollars in payments to a slug. Oh well, when he cuts Frank at the end of the year he can use the money saved to pay the second year of the debt.

Man, we havent even started the season yet and everyone is dismissing this guy or that guy. Have patience and see what happens, if he performs poorly during his first few starts then start with the "KW made another bad move" chant that you all seem so happy to start

owensmouth
03-30-2005, 09:18 AM
Man, we havent even started the season yet and everyone is dismissing this guy or that guy. Have patience and see what happens, if he performs poorly during his first few starts then start with the "KW made another bad move" chant that you all seem so happy to start

I started it last year when the trade was made.

Flight #24
03-30-2005, 09:22 AM
Contreras is in his mid 30's, these are the same problems he has faced since he came to MLB. He's not going to get any better. What we've seen from him is what we're going to get this year, and that is inconsistency.

As much as I'm a FOKW, this will go down as one of his not-so-good moves, considering we're wasting $6 million a year on this guy. $6 million a year could have been spent more wisely on another pitcher.

This guy is more frustrating than Garland. All the stuff in the world and nothing upstairs.

1) Contreras is in his 3d year in MLB. Is it unheard of for a guy to improve in his 3d year? I wouldn't think so. His first year was pretty good, his 2d poor (although not as bad as the averages would indicate given his high variability game to game).

2) $6mil wouldn't have gotten you much. Possibly someone like Paul Wilson ($4mil). You'd have less downside but less upside as well. In fact, I'd guess that Jose will give you similar QS #s to Wilson since he dominates or sucks whereas Wilson's just consistently mediocre or worse.

You certainly weren't going to be able to get a guy like Odalis Perez or Matt Clement or anything.

Ol' No. 2
03-30-2005, 09:31 AM
1) Contreras is in his 3d year in MLB. Is it unheard of for a guy to improve in his 3d year? I wouldn't think so. His first year was pretty good, his 2d poor (although not as bad as the averages would indicate given his high variability game to game).

2) $6mil wouldn't have gotten you much. Possibly someone like Paul Wilson ($4mil). You'd have less downside but less upside as well. In fact, I'd guess that Jose will give you similar QS #s to Wilson since he dominates or sucks whereas Wilson's just consistently mediocre or worse.

You certainly weren't going to be able to get a guy like Odalis Perez or Matt Clement or anything.Good point. Last winter saw 8-10 win pitchers pulling down $8-9M contracts. Contreras won 13 last year. And before someone starts with the "it's just because of the Yankees' run support" myth, if you project his record with the Sox to 33 starts, you get 13 wins. For $6M, you're not going to get much. Contreras has a big upside, but I can't see him pitching worse than last year. IMO, he's more likely to win more than 13 games rather than less.

infohawk
03-30-2005, 09:34 AM
I think Contreras is better suited to the bullpen. Yeah, he'd be an expensive reliever, but the move should be made if its best for the team. I have no problem with giving him a few starts to see if he can turn it around. I'd keep him on a short leash, though, considering the team can bring up McCarthy.

I find it kind of amusing that Contreras contributed toward the ever growing animosity between the Yankees and Red Sox. They both fought brutally to aquire him. I remember the reports about how Theo Epstein allegedly threw a chair into a wall or thru a window or something when he learned Contreras had chosen the Yankees. I think the "evil empire" comment made by one of the Red Sox owners was a result of the Yankees acquisition of Contreras.

Ol' No. 2
03-30-2005, 09:39 AM
I think Contreras is better suited to the bullpen. Yeah, he'd be an expensive reliever, but the move should be made if its best for the team. I have no problem with giving him a few starts to see if he can turn it around. I'd keep him on a short leash, though, considering the team can bring up McCarthy.

I find it kind of amusing that Contreras contributed toward the ever growing animosity between the Yankees and Red Sox. They both fought brutally to aquire him. I remember the reports about how Theo Epstein allegedly threw a chair into a wall or thru a window or something when he learned Contreras had chosen the Yankees. I think the "evil empire" comment made by one of the Red Sox owners was a result of the Yankees acquisition of Contreras.Contreras has the ideal qualities for a reliever: erratic with poor control.:rolleyes:

owensmouth
03-30-2005, 09:54 AM
1) Contreras is in his 3d year in MLB. Is it unheard of for a guy to improve in his 3d year? I wouldn't think so. His first year was pretty good, his 2d poor (although not as bad as the averages would indicate given his high variability game to game).

2) $6mil wouldn't have gotten you much. Possibly someone like Paul Wilson ($4mil). You'd have less downside but less upside as well. In fact, I'd guess that Jose will give you similar QS #s to Wilson since he dominates or sucks whereas Wilson's just consistently mediocre or worse.

You certainly weren't going to be able to get a guy like Odalis Perez or Matt Clement or anything.

Who could the Sox have gotten if they had not acquired Contreras and had not signed Hernandez? The fifth starter would be McCarthy.

Flight #24
03-30-2005, 10:00 AM
Who could the Sox have gotten if they had not acquired Contreras and had not signed Hernandez? The fifth starter would be McCarthy.

That would probably have gotten you a Clement-type of guy. But how comfortable would you have been going into ST with McCarthy as the 5th & Garland as the 4th? Heck - I'm not certain I'd be that comfortable with McCarthy as the 5th even after his dominant ST. I'd rather see him cement his improvement with some AA time. Remember - we were all pretty happy with Dan Wright after his first year as a starter.

Throughout the offseason, the mantra was "depth without holes rather than stars+holes". The way the pitching staff is structured fits that. You now have 6 solid starters (if you include McCarthy), providing depth in the event some of the ?s don't pan out. The alternative is basically what we did offensively the past few years with star hitters surrounded by ?s like Harris, Crede, Valentin.

Flight #24
03-30-2005, 10:01 AM
Contreras has the ideal qualities for a reliever: erratic with poor control.:rolleyes:

Not to mention he does his worst work with guys on base. I guess we're assuming that releivers only come in with the bases empty......

Ol' No. 2
03-30-2005, 10:04 AM
Who could the Sox have gotten if they had not acquired Contreras and had not signed Hernandez? The fifth starter would be McCarthy.Your hindsight is 20/20. If Kenny had suggested in January that they plan on using a rookie with 4 AA starts as the 5th starter, I'm sure just about everyone here would have been screaming for Kenny's head.

RockRaines
03-30-2005, 10:05 AM
JC is just a moron, and he is not very good at making changes in his delivery or any of his mechanics. He has a million dollar arm and a 5 cent head.

santo=dorf
03-30-2005, 10:07 AM
Contreras better get it together soon. KW has been very high on him saying that on talent alone he shuold win 14-15 games and that the Sox have been working with him to correct flaws to take him to the next level.


Bob
He won 13 last season. Is it really a stretch for him to win 1 or 2 more game(s)?

owensmouth
03-30-2005, 10:17 AM
That would probably have gotten you a Clement-type of guy. But how comfortable would you have been going into ST with McCarthy as the 5th & Garland as the 4th? Heck - I'm not certain I'd be that comfortable with McCarthy as the 5th even after his dominant ST. I'd rather see him cement his improvement with some AA time. Remember - we were all pretty happy with Dan Wright after his first year as a starter.

Throughout the offseason, the mantra was "depth without holes rather than stars+holes". The way the pitching staff is structured fits that. You now have 6 solid starters (if you include McCarthy), providing depth in the event some of the ?s don't pan out. The alternative is basically what we did offensively the past few years with star hitters surrounded by ?s like Harris, Crede, Valentin.

A rookie like McCarthy has to be considered a fifth starter, until he proves himself in the major leagues. McCarthy has the same thing going for him that Buehrle did when he was brought up, he throws strikes.

"depth without holes"? Contreras is a big hole.

Flight #24
03-30-2005, 10:52 AM
A rookie like McCarthy has to be considered a fifth starter, until he proves himself in the major leagues. McCarthy has the same thing going for him that Buehrle did when he was brought up, he throws strikes.

"depth without holes"? Contreras is a big hole.

How about a pitcher with
13QS (T-35th in AL)
13wins (T-17th in AL)
7.93K/9 (7th in AL)
1.79 K/BB (30th in AL)
1.47WHIP (31st in AL)

That seem like a big hole to you? That's Jose's #s from last year. His ERA sucked. But it's skewed because he has some absolutely horrendous outings. But most of his pitching metrics are actually solid, and while wins isn't the best gauge of a pitcher, the sum total of his performance is that he gives the team a very good chance to win 40-50% of the time, which is perfect for a #4 or 5 starter.

infohawk
03-30-2005, 11:12 AM
Not to mention he does his worst work with guys on base. I guess we're assuming that releivers only come in with the bases empty......


The Sox have three options with Contreras. Put him in the rotation and hope he figures things out. Make him a reliever and hope he can make a positive contribution to the team in such a role. Trade him. I'm suggesting that if he doesn't do well in the rotation after a few starts, the Sox may want to give him opportunities out of the bullpen. The following data from the 2004 season provides me with some evidence that, just perhaps, he may be more effective as a reliever.

Pitches 1-15
.253 Average .327 OBP 24 Strikeouts 9 Walks

Pitches 16-30
.242 Average .303 OBP 22 Strikeouts 9 Walks

Here is the big problem...

Pitches 31-45
.366 Average .426 OBP 17 Strikeouts 13 Walks

Pitches 46-60
.258 Average .389 OBP 20 Strikeouts 17 Walks

These statistics suggest that Contreras is effective early in games until teams realize they can lay off his splitter. My only question is why teams don't just lay off his splitter and sit on his fastball early in games? The reason they don't must be a case of "easier said than done." It can be a deceptive pitch, and players probably need to see it several times to get a feel on how to read it. Hitting isn't easy. The same goes for pitch-tipping. If he is really tipping his pitches, it may take several batters before a team can get a read on him. His stats between pitch 30 and 60 are just plain scary. His strikeout rate drops somewhat and his walk rate climbs significantly, and I suspect this is because guys are laying of the splitter and sitting on the fastball.

These stats lead me to believe that he might be better suited to pitching an inning or two at a time if he can't straighten himself out. I know he pitched about 13 innings of relief when he was a Yankee and didn't fare to well. Thirteen innings is a pretty small sample size, though, and I don't know what the situations were when he actually pitched.

Flight #24
03-30-2005, 11:20 AM
The Sox have three options with Contreras. Put him in the rotation and hope he figures things out. Make him a reliever and hope he can make a positive contribution to the team in such a role. Trade him. I'm suggesting that if he doesn't do well in the rotation after a few starts, the Sox may want to give him opportunities out of the bullpen. The following data from the 2004 season provides me with some evidence that, just perhaps, he may be more effective as a reliever.

Pitches 1-15
.253 Average .327 OBP 24 Strikeouts 9 Walks

Pitches 16-30
.242 Average .303 OBP 22 Strikeouts 9 Walks

Here is the big problem...

Pitches 31-45
.366 Average .426 OBP 17 Strikeouts 13 Walks

Pitches 46-60
.258 Average .389 OBP 20 Strikeouts 17 Walks

These statistics suggest that Contreras is effective early in games until teams realize they can lay off his splitter. My only question is why teams don't just lay off his splitter and sit on his fastball early in games? The reason they don't must be a case of "easier said than done." It can be a deceptive pitch, and players probably need to see it several times to get a feel on how to read it. Hitting isn't easy. The same goes for pitch-tipping. If he is really tipping his pitches, it may take several batters before a team can get a read on him. His stats between pitch 30 and 60 are just plain scary. His strikeout rate drops somewhat and his walk rate climbs significantly, and I suspect this is because guys are laying of the splitter and sitting on the fastball.

These stats lead me to believe that he might be better suited to pitching an inning or two at a time if he can't straighten himself out. I know he pitched about 13 innings of relief when he was a Yankee and didn't fare to well. Thirteen innings is a pretty small sample size, though, and I don't know what the situations where when he actually pitched.

My concern is these splits from 2004:
Bases empty: .239BAA / .306OBPA / .440SLGA / 95K / 37BB / 414AB
Man on base: .276BAA / .391OBPA / .453SLGA / 55K / 47BB / 243AB

Relivers often come in with men on base, unless you're going to turn him into a mop-up man.

California Sox
03-30-2005, 11:36 AM
My concern is these splits from 2004:
Bases empty: .239BAA / .306OBPA / .440SLGA / 95K / 37BB / 414AB
Man on base: .276BAA / .391OBPA / .453SLGA / 55K / 47BB / 243AB

Relivers often come in with men on base, unless you're going to turn him into a mop-up man.

Those splits aren't good if you're a starter either. What they say is, he gives up big innings because when men get on base, they score.

CubKilla
03-30-2005, 11:39 AM
He won 13 last season. Is it really a stretch for him to win 1 or 2 more game(s)?

If he's a starter all season, he'll win more than Garland.

This team has 2 headcases (Contreras and Garland), an injury risk (Hernandez), and 2 bonafide SP's (Buehrle and Garcia)..... and MB may or may not be going into Opening Day with an injury depending on who you talk to.

Wait and see.

34 Inch Stick
03-30-2005, 11:42 AM
Your hindsight is 20/20. If Kenny had suggested in January that they plan on using a rookie with 4 AA starts as the 5th starter, I'm sure just about everyone here would have been screaming for Kenny's head.

If Kenny suggested today that McCarthy is the 5th starter I would be screaming for his head.

Flight #24
03-30-2005, 11:46 AM
If he's a starter all season, he'll win more than Garland.

This team has 2 headcases (Contreras and Garland), an injury risk (Hernandez), and 2 bonafide SP's (Buehrle and Garcia)..... and MB may or may not be going into Opening Day with an injury depending on who you talk to.

Wait and see.

It's fairly easy to throw around terms like "headcase". Go check the stats, both Garland and Contreras are fairly solidly in the middle of the pack in terms of MLB starters by most metrics. But wait, let me guess - you know a headcase when you see one and Garland & Contreras just plain suck.

And as for MB - unless you're getting your data from that writer in Minnesota, there's no one who's saying MB has an injury. That's been quite effectively debunked.

batmanZoSo
03-30-2005, 11:58 AM
Williams is just a lousy judge of pitching talent. By making the trade that brought Countreras to the Sox, he obligated the team to 12 million dollars in payments to a slug. Oh well, when he cuts Frank at the end of the year he can use the money saved to pay the second year of the debt.

A few spring training starts and you can already judge the trade? Wait til the end of the year before you do that. Spring means NOTHING. We'll see what happens. This is his first year away from New York and united with his family. You never know.

JRIG
03-30-2005, 12:06 PM
A few spring training starts and you can already judge the trade? Wait til the end of the year before you do that. Spring means NOTHING. We'll see what happens. This is his first year away from New York and united with his family. You never know.

Well, we also have his subpar end of 2004 to take into account as well. Being reunited with his family was supposed to spark him last year as well.

balke
03-30-2005, 12:23 PM
Hey, the 6 mil for contreras includes the Yanks money they sent over too right? What about the 4 mil or whatever of Loaiza's salary from last season. Who paid that? I think we got the Loaiza discount too.

W/o JC, we'd have Grilli and Mccarthy there, but might have an over paid Vizquel, w/ Uribe at 2nd, and no GOOCH.

I still like JC. People are picking him anywhere from 10-20 wins. I haven't heard less than that, I wouldn't expect less than that. I think 18 is attainable, but maybe not with this starting lineup. Let him play his games. I don't like that he STILL doesn't have control of his fastball, but we'll see what he can do. It hasn't knocked him out of the majors yet.

JRIG
03-30-2005, 12:25 PM
Hey, the 6 mil for contreras includes the Yanks money they sent over too right? What about the 4 mil or whatever of Loaiza's salary from last season. Who paid that? I think we got the Loaiza discount too.

W/o JC, we'd have Grilli and Mccarthy there, but might have an over paid Vizquel, w/ Uribe at 2nd, and no GOOCH.

I still like JC. People are picking him anywhere from 10-20 wins. I haven't heard less than that, I wouldn't expect less than that. I think 18 is attainable, but maybe not with this starting lineup. Let him play his games. I don't like that he STILL doesn't have control of his fastball, but we'll see what he can do. It hasn't knocked him out of the majors yet.

The $6 million tab for the Sox already takes into acxcount the money the Yanks are contributing. I think that answers the question.

maurice
03-30-2005, 12:30 PM
I don't see how Contreras can ever become a good short reliever. He's terrible from the stretch and his biggest problem is his stubborn refusal to throw more fastball strikes. Hard-throwing short reliever who gets some Ks but walks too many guys = Billy Koch, Part Deux.

IMHO, it's rotation or bust for Contreras. If he sucks early, McCarthy will take his place and Contreras will end up in the back of the pen waiting for Hernandez to go on the DL. What color is the opposite of deeppink?

Flight #24
03-30-2005, 12:33 PM
I don't see how Contreras can ever become a good short reliever. He's terrible from the stretch and his biggest problem is his stubborn refusal to throw more fastball strikes. Hard-throwing short reliever who gets some Ks but walks too many guys = Billy Koch, Part Deux.

IMHO, it's rotation or bust for Contreras. If he sucks early, McCarthy will take his place and Contreras will end up in the back of the pen waiting for Hernandez to go on the DL. What color is the opposite of deeppink?

Just working to the opposite of the color matrix, it woudl be "Dim Gray", which seems fitting for your sentiment.

maurice
03-30-2005, 12:39 PM
"If he sucks early, McCarthy will take his place and Contreras will end up in the back of the pen waiting for Hernandez to go on the DL."

Ah, much better! :cool:

DaleJRFan
03-30-2005, 12:49 PM
Just working to the opposite of the color matrix, it woudl be "Dim Gray", which seems fitting for your sentiment.

From a color theory standpoint, the opposite of Dim Gray is Bright Gray. The true opposite of Deep Pink is a very unpleasant shade of grrreeeen...

http://www.lucidnoir.com/pictures/wsi_color_spectrum.gif

Ol' No. 2
03-30-2005, 12:53 PM
From a color theory standpoint, the opposite of Dim Gray is Bright Gray. The true opposite of Deep Pink is a very unpleasant shade of grrreeeen...

http://www.lucidnoir.com/pictures/wsi_color_spectrum.gifThe varied expertise in this place never ceases to amaze me.:cool:

DaleJRFan
03-30-2005, 12:55 PM
heard this on CSN last night, sure it had to be stolen from WSI, as it sounds like a WSI line... but...

"Jose Contreras is spanish for Jon Garland"

JC is a 500 pitcher with the "potential" to be a shutdown starter. Too bad he has a no trade clause. Will be hard to move him after this season...

mdep524
03-30-2005, 01:43 PM
A few spring training starts and you can already judge the trade? Wait til the end of the year before you do that. Spring means NOTHING. We'll see what happens. This is his first year away from New York and united with his family. You never know. I'm very happy for Jose that he is reunited with his family, that is the most important thing in life IMO. Still, I don't understand how having his wife and kids in Chicago will magically stop him from tipping his pitches and help him pitching in the stretch.

chisoxfan79
03-30-2005, 03:29 PM
[QUOTE=infohawk]I think Contreras is better suited to the bullpen.

I have to disagree with you when you pitch out of the bullpen you are throwing from the stretch that is when Contreras gets into trouble and starts tipping his pitches.

SOX ADDICT '73
03-30-2005, 03:50 PM
From a color theory standpoint, the opposite of Dim Gray is Bright Gray. The true opposite of Deep Pink is a very unpleasant shade of grrreeeen...

http://www.lucidnoir.com/pictures/wsi_color_spectrum.gif
Yeah, but if we start using that color, the Teal Police will lose their minds!