PDA

View Full Version : Remember 2000 if you don't think we need a SP


1917
07-12-2005, 02:28 PM
I know you can't compare the 2000 staff with the 2005 staff...no comparison...I remember the trade deadline in 2000 we got Charles Johnson and our buddy Harold...good, but we needed another experienced arm with Elred down and out...I remember Shane Reynolds was ava at the time...By the end of 2000 our arms were dead....maybe because they were young and inexperienced, but never the less dead....Sirotka, Parque, and Baldwin are all out of baseball, or the Majors at least...go figure Elred with the bionic metal arm is still pitching...we need to get another starter...it doesn't have to be Schimdt, Burnett or the countless others mentioned....just a major league arm that can take the heat off of our main guys....I'm not blamng the 2000 collapse on the pitching, out bats went dead and at the end of 2000, they were playing like they didn't care and it carried over...but I think if we had that strong arm, we would have went farther...at least we wouldn't have got swept

SoxSpeed22
07-12-2005, 02:35 PM
I know you can't compare the 2000 staff with the 2005 staff...no comparison...I remember the trade deadline in 2000 we got Charles Johnson and our buddy Harold...good, but we needed another experienced arm with Elred down and out...I remember Shane Reynolds was ava at the time...By the end of 2000 our arms were dead....maybe because they were young and inexperienced, but never the less dead....Sirotka, Parque, and Baldwin are all out of baseball, or the Majors at least...go figure Elred with the bionic metal arm is still pitching...we need to get another starter...it doesn't have to be Schimdt, Burnett or the countless others mentioned....just a major league arm that can take the heat off of our main guys....I'm not blamng the 2000 collapse on the pitching, out bats went dead and at the end of 2000, they were playing like they didn't care and it carried over...but I think if we had that strong arm, we would have went farther...at least we wouldn't have got sweptThe WHOLE TEAM went dead at the end of that year. Our staff is miles ahead of that staff. The quyzbuk* about the whole thing is that so many teams think they're still in it, so they'll be reluctant to trade. I won't be surprised if Schmidt's in a Sox uniform or another lefty bat.
*Quyzbuk= a big problem. From an episode of "The Critic"

maurice
07-12-2005, 02:36 PM
I think if we had that strong arm, we would have went farther...at least we wouldn't have got swept

In the 2000 playoffs, Seattle averaged less than 5 runs per game, while the Sox averaged just over 2 runs per game. No Sox starter gave up more than 3 ER. It seems like we needed a bat more than an arm.

maurice
07-12-2005, 02:37 PM
Our staff is miles ahead of that staff.

True.

Buehrle-Garland-Garcia > Sirotka-Parque-Baldwin.

1917
07-12-2005, 02:40 PM
In the 2000 playoffs, Seattle averaged less than 5 runs per game, while the Sox averaged just over 2 runs per game. No Sox starter gave up more than 3 ER. It seems like we needed a bat more than an arm.

You are right...I just thought a big name starter could have gotton us going, but you are right, our bats killed us...

SOXSINCE'70
07-12-2005, 02:40 PM
While it would be nice to pick up another SP,The 5 of Beuhrle,Garland,
Garcia,Hernandez and Contreras is not as fragile as Baldwin,Parque,
Sirotka, Eldred and Wells/Garland/Ken Hill:cower:.

The 2000 fivesome had never pitched that many innings.
The 2005 quintet has more innings under their belt.The # 1,2,and 3
pitchers are each capable of 200+ IP's (Innings Pitched).
Hell,Beuhrle leads the A.L. in IP's at the ASB.


Maybe the Sox will get some bullpen help,
maybe a lesser known starter.It will be hard to make a deal
as many teams may still feel they're in the WC hunt,even if their
record is.500 or less (i.e.Oakland or SF) .

This may go up till midnight of the last day to make a trade.

Stay Tuned.

SOXSINCE'70
07-12-2005, 02:44 PM
It seems like we needed a bat more than an arm.

Or maybe the middle of the Sox lineup (3-6) needed to stop swinging
for the fences when a base hit or Sac Fly with less than 2 outs would
have done the trick.:angry:

jackbrohamer
07-12-2005, 03:32 PM
The people demanding trades for pitchers near the deadline in 2000 were tossing around names like Pete Harnisch. Everyone wants to add pitching whenever they can, especially playoff teams looking at the trade deadline. It doesn't mean there's anything useful available.

Iwritecode
07-12-2005, 04:23 PM
In the 2000 playoffs, Seattle averaged less than 5 runs per game, while the Sox averaged just over 2 runs per game. No Sox starter gave up more than 3 ER. It seems like we needed a bat more than an arm.

The starting pitchers battled their asses of in that series. It really just made it that much more depressing. The offense was extremely inconsistent that year and they just happen to have a cold streak when the playoffs started.

Really when I look back on it, if they had made it to the ALCS, would any of the pitchers have had anything left in the tank?

skobabe8
07-12-2005, 05:15 PM
Sirotka, Parque, and Baldwin are all out of baseball, or the Majors at least...

I just saw Baldwin in the Orioles' bullpen recently. Not that it matters.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-12-2005, 05:36 PM
In the 2000 playoffs, Seattle averaged less than 5 runs per game, while the Sox averaged just over 2 runs per game. No Sox starter gave up more than 3 ER. It seems like we needed a bat more than an arm.

THANK YOU!

The misconceptions surrounding the 95-win Sox of 2000 are simply disgraceful. For all the fretting (and subsequent "told ya so" nonsense) over our pitching staff, you would think we lost those games to Seattle 19-18.

Get a ****ing clue people! Our BATS went silent. Three games later we were swept out. Harold Freakin' Baines was our leading offensive threat! If we got any offensive production at all, it's the Sox sweeping Seattle instead of the other way around.

Before you knew it rookie GM (and certified idiot) Kenny Williams was removing hitters from our line up in favor of light-hitting defensive specialists, just in time for all the starting pitchers from 2000 to land on the DL. And guess what? The 2001 Sox fell flat on their face -- right up until Manuel finally stopped trying to "out-defense" the opposition and went back to a line up with some pop in it. That team came back from the dead in late-May and June, the exact moment Clayton was benched and Ramirez demoted.

Ah **** it all. The "pitching and defense wins championships" cliche-spouters think they know everything about baseball because they once heard Bill Jauss talk on the "Sportswriters on TV" show.

They only show their ignorance when they bring up the 2000 Sox.

Brian26
07-12-2005, 05:44 PM
True.

Buehrle-Garland-Garcia > Sirotka-Parque-Baldwin.

More like:

Buehrle-Garland-Garcia > 10*(Sirotka-Parque-Baldwin)

Not even close.

Brian26
07-12-2005, 05:46 PM
Get a ****ing clue people! Our BATS went silent. Three games later we were swept out. Harold Freakin' Baines was our leading offensive threat!

I still wake up some nights in a cold sweat seeing those pop-ups in my head by PK/Mags/Frank. It's my worst nightmare. Pop-up after pop-up after pop-up after pop-up.....and then it all ends with a nice 6-4-3 GIDP.

Lip Man 1
07-12-2005, 10:15 PM
I'm curious what determines 'how many runs is enough.' (And I don't mean 'well score one more then the opponent, that's how many is needed'...)

The White Sox scored four runs in game #1 of the ALDS. Normally with a quality pitcher on the mound (and with respect I don't mean Jim Parque) that's enough to win.

They took a lead I think, into the 6th inning, when Manager Gandhi in another one of his wacky moves, brought in a rookie Chad Bradford to pitch in a key situation. He promptly gave the lead up.

It's all hindsight but if the Sox somehow were able to bridge the professional and personal differences and get a Mike Mussina or a Curt Schilling (both of whom were mentioned highly as potential trade acquisitions), four runs is enough. If they win game #1 the entire complexion of the short series is different.

I'll give you game #2 and #3 but four runs in game #1 is a winner for a quality starting pitcher. Runs are hard to come by period, in the post season. You don't see a lot of 8-1 blowouts.

Lip

doublem23
07-12-2005, 11:29 PM
The only pitcher you can blame for the '00 ALDS would be Foulke. Awful outing in Game 1. Sox never looked the same afterwards.

slavko
07-13-2005, 12:40 AM
I'm curious what determines 'how many runs is enough.' (And I don't mean 'well score one more then the opponent, that's how many is needed'...)

The White Sox scored four runs in game #1 of the ALDS. Normally with a quality pitcher on the mound (and with respect I don't mean Jim Parque) that's enough to win.

They took a lead I think, into the 6th inning, when Manager Gandhi in another one of his wacky moves, brought in a rookie Chad Bradford to pitch in a key situation. He promptly gave the lead up.

It's all hindsight but if the Sox somehow were able to bridge the professional and personal differences and get a Mike Mussina or a Curt Schilling (both of whom were mentioned highly as potential trade acquisitions), four runs is enough. If they win game #1 the entire complexion of the short series is different.

I'll give you game #2 and #3 but four runs in game #1 is a winner for a quality starting pitcher. Runs are hard to come by period, in the post season. You don't see a lot of 8-1 blowouts.

Lip

IIRC Bradford pitched a lot in 1998 or 1999, spent most of 2000 in the minors, was brought back late in the year, and put on the playoff roster (for no apparent reason). Who did he displace?

Lip Man 1
07-13-2005, 03:10 AM
According to Retrosheet, Bradford pitched all of 34 innings in two years. None in that type of pressure atmosphere.

To me that's not 'a lot.'

Lip

maurice
07-13-2005, 11:53 AM
I think it's fair to say that just over 2 runs per game qualifies as "not enough."

Even 4 runs in a single game probably qualifies as "not enough," since the MLB average is around 4.5 runs per game. Yeah, a Beckett or somebody could win that game, but the offense is not leaving much margin for error.