PDA

View Full Version : Contreras: Cuban for "Jaime Navarro"?


California Sox
04-02-2005, 11:43 AM
This post is not about Contreras' up and down performances this spring, but rather his attitude about those up and down performances. His quotes in today's Tribune reminded me of a certain overweight righty from our recent past:

"I just want to tell the fans I'm not worried about everything," said Contreras, who will make his regular-season debut Thursday against Cleveland. "I'm fine and ready for the season

"Everything is fine. Winning and losing is just part of the game."

Of course, the fact that he is owed $15 million for the next two years probably eases his mind.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050401sox,1,4378543.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

dugwood31
04-02-2005, 12:57 PM
Thank you! I feel like we're (Sox fans collectively) way too optimistic about Contreras. This is gonna be a disaster, both financially and on the field. He'll be in middle inning mop up duty by July. What a waste. At least we got rid of Loaiza though.

bigdommer
04-02-2005, 12:59 PM
As much as I don't like Contreras as a pitcher and person, the Sox got a quality arm for cheap, considering they dumped ELo and got some cash from the Yankees. I would like to see Contreras succeed, but if he doesn't I don't feel that Ozzie will be hesitant at all to pull up BMac, assuming El Duque and JG are doing allright.

SoxxoS
04-02-2005, 01:02 PM
He is going to look like Cy Young 1 game, then the aforementioned Jaime Navarro the next 2. We are just going to have to deal with it. If BMAC keeps dominating and nobody gets hurt, we can reevaluate in mid-May.

bigdommer
04-02-2005, 01:22 PM
Some comparable pitchers to Contreras, considering age, health, and recent numbers:

Jaret Wright - Career ERA over 5, 29 yrs old, $7 Mill per year
Kevin Millwood - 4.85 ERA last year, 30, elbow issues, $7 mill
Kris Benson - Under .500 career record, 30, $7.5 mill per year
Paul Wilson - Under .500, Career ERA 4.71, 32, $4.1 mill per
Jon Leiber - Career ERA 4.2, 35, elbow problems, $7 mill per
Russ Ortiz - Over 4 ERA, tons of walks, 30, $8.25 mill per

Yeah, I skewed the numbers a little, but these guys make me feel as comfortable as Contreras does. We pay Jose $6 mill per year. That doesn't make me happy, but at least we aren't pay Jaret Wright 7 to perform worse. Pitching is expensive, and I don't like it. But until we get the guys from our farm system to step up like BMac, we have to pay for it.

MeanFish
04-02-2005, 02:24 PM
He is going to look like Cy Young 1 game, then the aforementioned Jaime Navarro the next 2. We are just going to have to deal with it. If BMAC keeps dominating and nobody gets hurt, we can reevaluate in mid-May.

The question is, how often will he do the former instead of the latter? Assuming he gets the W in almost all of his quality starts and singlehandedly nets the L in others, he could end up winning 15 games this year, even if he loses ten. The averages will suffer, but that won't necessarily make him a bad pitcher. We should give him at least April and some of May before we make a decision. His numbers could look worse, but he could give us more opportunities to win than Garland.

samram
04-02-2005, 02:28 PM
I know that Sidney Ponson is the Aruban equivalent of Jaime Navarro, but I'm not sure if Contreras is the Cuban equivalent. Navarro used to give up a ton of hits- Contreras's problem will be walks.

bigdommer
04-02-2005, 02:36 PM
I know that Sidney Ponson is the Aruban equivalent of Jaime Navarro, but I'm not sure if Contreras is the Cuban equivalent. Navarro used to give up a ton of hits- Contreras's problem will be walks.

Is Bartolo Colon the Dominican equivalent of Ponson? Or are they just the same size?

samram
04-02-2005, 02:46 PM
Is Bartolo Colon the Dominican equivalent of Ponson? Or are they just the same size?

They're just the same size. Bartolo is capable of getting people out.

santo=dorf
04-02-2005, 03:06 PM
Contreras is getting $12 million from the Sox, and these comments don't compare to Jaime's.

Garland's "That's just the way I pitch" or "If Konerko didn't make that error, it'd be a 4-4 game" sound more like Jaime's.

CubKilla
04-02-2005, 03:52 PM
Garland's "That's just the way I pitch" or "If Konerko didn't make that error, it'd be a 4-4 game" sound more like Jaime's.

Let's not forget, ".....if you wanna boo..... just stay at home."

Garlandisms :rolleyes:

chisox06
04-02-2005, 09:02 PM
Let's not forget, ".....if you wanna boo..... just stay at home."

Garlandisms :rolleyes:

Ah yes thats one example why Garland is my least favorite player on this team.

As far as Contreras is concerned many seem to believe that the vast majority of his problems are mental. I've heard all about this fresh start stuff and "getting out of New York will do wonders for his confidence." He's got great stuff, but doesn't show it consistently, their have been plenty of players with great arms that never had overwhelming success at the major league level. I think the Sox are taking a pretty big risk on this guy, cant say Im too optimistic on him being a consistently good pitcher. And if he falters, we have to do something about it. I would put him in the same boat as Crede as far as a make ya or break ya year, enough excuses and hearing about all of your wonderful "potential", go out and get it done.

MeanFish
04-02-2005, 09:03 PM
Ah yes thats one example why Garland is my least favorite player on this team.

As far as Contreras is concerned many seem to believe that the vast majority of his problemsare mental. I've heard all about this fresh start stuff and "getting out of New York will do wonders for his confidence." He's got great stuff, but doesn't show it consistently, their have been plenty of players with great arms that never had overwhelming success at the major league level, I think the Sox are taking a pretty big risk on this guy, cant say Im too optimistic on him being a consistently good pitcher, and if he falters, we have to do something about it. I would put him in the same boat as Crede as far as a make ya or break ya year, enough excuses and hearing about all of your wonderful "potential", go out and get it done.

But, what you need to realize is that he doesn't need to be a consistently good pitcher if he can be inconsistently great over half the time.

chisox06
04-02-2005, 09:09 PM
But, what you need to realize is that he doesn't need to be a consistently good pitcher if he can be inconsistently great over half the time.

If your counting on a pitcher to be "inconsitently great" I would consider that a problem, and not something I would be to confident with. I would much rather have a pitcher that can keep you in the game start after start, than a pitcher that shuts em down one day, and gets blown away the next.

Ol' No. 2
04-02-2005, 09:10 PM
But, what you need to realize is that he doesn't need to be a consistently good pitcher if he can be inconsistently great over half the time.Look at it this way: He was pretty bad last year, but how much worse could he get? But as bad as he was last year he still managed to win 13 games. And he had a pretty good year in 2003. So it seems more likely to me that he'll improve closer to the 2003 numbers than that he'll get worse. I'll take 13 wins from him.

MeanFish
04-02-2005, 09:15 PM
Look at it this way: He was pretty bad last year, but how much worse could he get? But as bad as he was last year he still managed to win 13 games. And he had a pretty good year in 2003. So it seems more likely to me that he'll improve closer to the 2003 numbers than that he'll get worse. I'll take 13 wins from him.

That's precisely what I'm trying to say. In winning those 13 games, he wasn't "consistently good" but rather "inconsistently great" because in most of those games he did win, he was absolutely electric.

JRIG
04-02-2005, 09:51 PM
That's precisely what I'm trying to say. In winning those 13 games, he wasn't "consistently good" but rather "inconsistently great" because in most of those games he did win, he was absolutely electric.

But the problem is the high number of "disaster" starts Contreras has. Ten times last year, he gave up more runs than innings pitched in a start. That means the team has virtually no chance of winning in those games. That's a big problem.

By comparison, Garland had 4 "disaster" starts last year.

Ol' No. 2
04-02-2005, 09:54 PM
But the problem is the high number of "disaster" starts Contreras has. Ten times last year, he gave up more runs than innings pitched in a start. That means the team has virtually no chance of winning in those games. That's a big problem.

By comparison, Garland had 4 "disaster" starts last year.That's a little misleading, though. Giving up 6 R in 7 IP is worse to me than 4 R in 3 IP.

owensmouth
04-03-2005, 12:33 AM
That's a little misleading, though. Giving up 6 R in 7 IP is worse to me than 4 R in 3 IP.

Why?

Foulke You
04-03-2005, 11:36 AM
You can have your concerns about Contreras if you wish, however, some people here are forgetting how horrifyingly bad Jaime Navarro was for the White Sox. There is no way Contreras will be that bad nor does any pitcher on our staff deserved to be compared to that sack of manure that Jaime Navarro was.

Jaime Navarro

White Sox
1997- 9W-14L 5.79 E.R.A.
1998- 8W-16L 6.36 E.R.A.
1999- 8W-13L 6.09 E.R.A.

MHOUSE
04-04-2005, 03:01 AM
Would you rather have the chance of Contreras showing up half the time and getting 12-15 wins or the guarantee of Loaiza getting shelled most of the time. He's now pitching for the Nationals and $6 million for a starter like Contreras is market value. He can flat-out dominate if he's on. I say he gets 4-5 wins just mowing them down, 6 wins from quality starts, and 3 wins when he's not on. Guarantee he gets shelled 5 games and loses 3-4 more and you've got 12-14 wins and single digit losses. I wouldn't expect much more out of Benson, Wright, Leiber, etc.