PDA

View Full Version : I'm gonna be sick!


Soxboyrob
12-12-2001, 03:45 PM
I can't fathom trading away Garland and Singleton for Erstad. Hell, I don't trade Garland straight up for Erstad at this point. Maybe if Erstad were signed to Giles' contract I'd think about it. I suppose if Erstad is healthy, he can potentially be MVP material, but Garland looked to be everything that had been advertised last year.

The guys on the Score are reporting that it's practically a done deal if it's not done already.

So, who replaces Garland in the rotation? Todd Ritchie? Yikes!

cheeses_h_rice
12-12-2001, 03:48 PM
What's the dilly-yo on Todd Ritchie, anyway?

Damn, we're gonna lose Garland. Oh well, Erstad is a stud, and I think we'll all like the effort he brings this year.

MaggPipes
12-12-2001, 03:49 PM
I say let them have them have the AWESOME wink wink Biddle and Ginter....and Lee of course....try to swing that....

cheeses_h_rice
12-12-2001, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by MaggPipes
I say let them have them have the AWESOME wink wink Biddle and Ginter....and Lee of course....try to swing that....

Do they need a Shortstop, too?

:hitless

I've got mad skillz!

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
What's the dilly-yo on Todd Ritchie, anyway?

Damn, we're gonna lose Garland. Oh well, Erstad is a stud, and I think we'll all like the effort he brings this year.

This is the type of deal you do if youre one player away from winning it all. The sox arent close. Its an IGNORANT trade. :angry:

Kilroy
12-12-2001, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Damn, we're gonna lose Garland. Oh well, Erstad is a stud, and I think we'll all like the effort he brings this year.

A stud in the field and at the plate can't replace a solid guy on the mound. This trade is assinine. I'm not much for bashing management but this kinda crap steams me. We should not, I repeat SHOULD NOT be trying to add fielders. We should be looking for chances to strengthen our pitching staff.

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


A stud in the field and at the plate can't replace a solid guy on the mound. This trade is assinine. I'm not much for bashing management but this kinda crap steams me. We should not, I repeat SHOULD NOT be trying to add fielders. We should be looking for chances to strengthen our pitching staff.


EXACTLY!! :angry:

Chisox_cali
12-12-2001, 03:59 PM
I would even be fine with the trade as long as it didnt involve garland. We have a ***** load of young pitchers why him?!?!?!?!?!? give him kip or wright or ginter anyone but GARLAND!!!!!!!! GODAMMIT!!!!! :angry: :angry: :angry: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

Tragg
12-12-2001, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


A stud in the field and at the plate can't replace a solid guy on the mound. This trade is assinine. I'm not much for bashing management but this kinda crap steams me. We should not, I repeat SHOULD NOT be trying to add fielders. We should be looking for chances to strengthen our pitching staff.

I can't agree there. A stud in the field IS worth more than a stud on the mound., all things being equal.

Of course, it also matters how much of a stud each is.

Garland is a good pitcher - may develop into a real good one. Erstad is good - my concern is that it is a rent a player situation. I'd rather see us trade some of the younger pitching, instead of the guys we spent 3 years sweating over and devloping into major league pitchers.

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


I can't agree there. A stud in the field IS worth more than a stud on the mound., all things being equal.

Of course, it also matters how much of a stud each is.

Garland is a good pitcher - may develop into a real good one. Erstad is good - my concern is that it is a rent a player situation. I'd rather see us trade some of the younger pitching, instead of the guys we spent 3 years sweating over and devloping into major league pitchers.

oh really? you may be the only person in AMerica who thinks hitting is more important than a good SP....

Joel Perez
12-12-2001, 04:06 PM
I agree with the other posters--trading a guy like Jon Garland speaks volumes.

If the Sox trade an unproven pitcher like Danny Wright, and throw in Matt Ginter, than it's OK. The Halo's (little Devils!) know Garland's upside. KW better negotiate a little better on this one. I can see Chris Singleton going, but man...Jon Garland? I thought he was one of our cornerstones for the future?

If this goes through, this will set the pitching staff back a year. Don't get me wrong, we have to make a trade like this, but at what cost? Jon Garland should me an "untradable", an "untouchable".

Now...if you tell me that Jon Garland was going to be traded for Brian Giles...I can see that. Giles has more upside than Erstad, plus Garland will be going to the NL rather than staying in the NL...he can bring hell to the Flubs then. But for Erstad? It's too much of a price IMO.

cheeses_h_rice
12-12-2001, 04:08 PM
If we end up losing Erstad after just a year, I will call this an "assinine" trade.

But I've seen Erstad in person several times, and the guy is exactly who you want out there. He is a STUD who plays the game hard and without ego.

Garland may or may not develop into a star pitcher himself. We just don't know. He seemed to be coming around this past year, though.

Anyway, I still like our potential rotation:

Buehrle
Parque
Wells
Glover
Wright/Lowe/Guerrier/Rauch/whoever

Not too shabby, I think.

CerberusWG
12-12-2001, 04:08 PM
Ok, let me try and play KW here...

How about..

Singleton and K Wells...and lets say a AA pitcher
for Erstad and an A baller?

Sound good?

Joel Perez
12-12-2001, 04:10 PM
Here's a ??

Why not trade Gary Glover instead of Jon Garland???

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Joel Perez
Here's a ??

Why not trade Gary Glover instead of Jon Garland???

you cant get erstad with gary glover lol

Tragg
12-12-2001, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


oh really? you may be the only person in AMerica who thinks hitting is more important than a good SP....

Is it necessary to get personal when an opinion differs from yours?

What single pitcher in major league history would you trade babe ruth for? Ted Williams? Joe DeMaggio? Willy Mays? None, zip, nada.
Who gets the most free agent money today, pitchers or hitters?
Who plays every day, a starter or a hitter?

I didn't say pitching was less important than hitting. I said a single positional player is more important than a single pitcher.

CerberusWG
12-12-2001, 04:14 PM
I don't know. Glover looked pretty damn good last year, but we have to realize one thing guys: We have a PLETHORA of prospects, we have to trade SOME of them. I'd like to keep Rauch, Garland, Glover, and maybe Guerrier.

With the Foulke signing I would be shopping Danny Wright as much as possible.

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


Is it necessary to get personal when an opinion differs from yours?

What single pitcher in major league history would you trade babe ruth for? Ted Williams? Joe DeMaggio? Willy Mays? None, zip, nada.
Who gets the most free agent money today, pitchers or hitters?
Who plays every day, a starter or a hitter?

I didn't say pitching was less important than hitting. I said a single positional player is more important than a single pitcher.

who wins world championships? Pitchers? I thought so.....

Tragg
12-12-2001, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


who wins world championships? Pitchers? I thought so.....

Yep, just ask the Atlanta Braves.

Tragg
12-12-2001, 04:25 PM
The Snakes won because of 2 dominating starters in a 7 game series. Garland is not and never will be a dominating starter. He doesn't have the stuff.

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


Yep, just ask the Atlanta Braves.

To even debate this topic is ridiculous. Everyone knows the most important piece to the world championship puzzle, is starting pitching. If you do not know this, maybe you should look in the mirror.

cheeses_h_rice
12-12-2001, 04:28 PM
Originally posted by Tragg
The Snakes won because of 2 dominating starters in a 7 game series. Garland is not and never will be a dominating starter. He doesn't have the stuff.

Bing bing bing! Give that man a cigar.

Hey, remind me again of how the Sox dominated the AL Central in 2000? I think it had something to do with their run production.

Good hitting + GOOD FIELDING (something Erstad brings to the table, in spades) + serviceable pitching will win the AL Central. Will it win the Series? I doubt it. But don't try and tell me that Jon Garland is the missing ingredient for a White Sox Series victory.

Spiff
12-12-2001, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


To even debate this topic is ridiculous. Everyone knows the most important piece to the world championship puzzle, is starting pitching. If you do not know this, maybe you should look in the mirror.

Haha that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I don't know about you but all my mirror tells me is I am one handsome devil.

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Wh1teSox00


Haha that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I don't know about you but all my mirror tells me is I am one handsome devil.

over your head.....

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


Bing bing bing! Give that man a cigar.

Hey, remind me again of how the Sox dominated the AL Central in 2000? I think it had something to do with their run production.

Good hitting + GOOD FIELDING (something Erstad brings to the table, in spades) + serviceable pitching will win the AL Central. Will it win the Series? I doubt it. But don't try and tell me that Jon Garland is the missing ingredient for a White Sox Series victory.

noone said garland was the missing piece. Noone said the sox won a world series in 2000. What was your point again?

Tragg
12-12-2001, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


To even debate this topic is ridiculous. Everyone knows the most important piece to the world championship puzzle, is starting pitching. If you do not know this, maybe you should look in the mirror.

Dominating starting pitching, yes. But garland is not that.

And the Yankees didn't have dominating starting pitching - 2 good ones, but not dominators. How many playoff teams did Randy Johnson pitch on before he made it trough a play off series? Many.
What about the Braves? They've had nothing but pitching and won 1 world champioinship.

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


Dominating starting pitching, yes. But garland is not that.

And the Yankees didn't have dominating starting pitching - 2 good ones, but not dominators. How many playoff teams did Randy Johnson pitch on before he made it trough a play off series? Many.
What about the Braves? They've had nothing but pitching and won 1 world champioinship.


why are you trying to use off the wall examples to debate against the obvious?

Spiff
12-12-2001, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


over your head.....

No it isn't don't act like it's some higher truth I can't fathom. It was a dumb statement. "Looking in the mirror" has nothing to do with discovering the importance of starting pitching. It was an absurd comparison.

cheeses_h_rice
12-12-2001, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


noone said garland was the missing piece. Noone said the sox won a world series in 2000. What was your point again?

My point(s) were:

1. It's possible to win your division easily without a stud rotation.

2. The Diamondbacks won the Series with 2 of the aces of the game, and not a solid rotation. There aren't enough aces to go around, now are there? That leaves about 25 or so teams still in the hunt if they can assemble the best overall cast of players. The Sox seem to be at least trying to do so.

KempersRS
12-12-2001, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


Dominating starting pitching, yes. But garland is not that.

And the Yankees didn't have dominating starting pitching - 2 good ones, but not dominators. How many playoff teams did Randy Johnson pitch on before he made it trough a play off series? Many.
What about the Braves? They've had nothing but pitching and won 1 world champioinship.

The Braves have been competitive for years and years. Thats more than we can say. I don't think they win their division every year because of their lack of timely hitting. You build a team around a strong staff. That is where it all begins. Great hitting and an average staff will get you somewhere, but our pitching isn't even average at this point!

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice


My point(s) were:

1. It's possible to win your division easily without a stud rotation.

2. The Diamondbacks won the Series with 2 of the aces of the game, and not a solid rotation. There aren't enough aces to go around, now are there? That leaves about 25 or so teams still in the hunt if they can assemble the best overall cast of players. The Sox seem to be at least trying to do so.

okay points taken. How do those points differ from my comment that teh most important piece to the world championship puzzle, is starting pitching?

Kilroy
12-12-2001, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Good hitting + GOOD FIELDING (something Erstad brings to the table, in spades) + serviceable pitching will win the AL Central. Will it win the Series? I doubt it.

Then maybe you should re-examine your goals, because winning the division is just a few steps short of mine.

Garland is no Cy Young at the moment, but looking at the Sox staff, he's one of the better ones that we have. Don't trade him away until you have someone as good or better to take his place.

NUCatsFan
12-12-2001, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by CerberusWG
Ok, let me try and play KW here...

How about..

Singleton and K Wells...and lets say a AA pitcher
for Erstad and an A baller?

Sound good?

How about these sets of trades? (No clue if any would work)

Singleton and KWells for Erstad (add minor-leaguers to either side)
2 minor league pitchers for Todd Richie (middle tier prospects)
CLee for Estes (Would that be enough?)

Tragg
12-12-2001, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS


The Braves have been competitive for years and years. Thats more than we can say. I don't think they win their division every year because of their lack of timely hitting. You build a team around a strong staff. That is where it all begins. Great hitting and an average staff will get you somewhere, but our pitching isn't even average at this point!

Unfortunately, neither is our offense or our defense. We had a lot of trouble scoring runs last year, due, in large part, to a woeful obp of much of our lineup.

Pitching is obviously a necessity. But we've got a lot of it. Use it or trade it.

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by KempersRS


The Braves have been competitive for years and years. Thats more than we can say. I don't think they win their division every year because of their lack of timely hitting. You build a team around a strong staff. That is where it all begins. Great hitting and an average staff will get you somewhere, but our pitching isn't even average at this point!

True, true and true again....

Bmr31
12-12-2001, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Then maybe you should re-examine your goals, because winning the division is just a few steps short of mine.

Garland is no Cy Young at the moment, but looking at the Sox staff, he's one of the better ones that we have. Don't trade him away until you have someone as good or better to take his place.

yes, maybe he should. Wait isnt re-examining your goals, and looking in the mirror, basically teh same thing? Watch out! Whitesox00 wont understand and will call you and idiot.... :)

cheeses_h_rice
12-12-2001, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Then maybe you should re-examine your goals, because winning the division is just a few steps short of mine.

Garland is no Cy Young at the moment, but looking at the Sox staff, he's one of the better ones that we have. Don't trade him away until you have someone as good or better to take his place.

I want the Sox to win the Series as much as anyone here, but don't try and tell me that the reason they didn't advance any farther in 2000 was because of pitching -- I was at the 2 home games, and I distinctly recall many of our "stud" hitters (Big Frank, Konerko, Maggs) whiffing and popping out when it mattered most, while Parque, Baldwin and Sirotka gutted it out.

Our team was mediocre in most facets last year. The trade for Erstad is a DEFINITE upgrade at CF, and we will now have a fast, non-error-prone option at at least 2 of the 3 OF positions (well, Maggs isn't so fast...). Again, you have to give something to get something. No one is going to take Glover, Wells, Lowe or any of the other half a dozen unproven starter studs we have on this team!

Also, KW isn't done making deals, and this deal isn't even done yet. Let's let the dust settle before we completely excoriate him for this trade.

FarWestChicago
12-12-2001, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by NUCatsFan
CLee for Estes (Would that be enough?) Estes? Doesn't his ERA outside of Pac Bell have to be replaced by a symbol because the conventional numbering system doesn't go that high? :smile:

Cheryl
12-12-2001, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Tragg


Is it necessary to get personal when an opinion differs from yours?

What single pitcher in major league history would you trade babe ruth for? Ted Williams? Joe DeMaggio? Willy Mays?



Pssst---Babe Ruth was a pitcher. Or at least started out as one. He was very good too. He converted to the outfield so he could hit every day.

NUCatsFan
12-12-2001, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Estes? Doesn't his ERA outside of Pac Bell have to be replaced by a symbol because the conventional numbering system doesn't go that high?

According to ESPN for the 2001 season....

3.15 ERA at home, 5.19 on the road. 9-8 overall (7-2, 2-6). Had 1 bad month (August) where he had an 8.35 ERA; all other months 4.5 or lower (except for his one game in October)

3.51 before ASB, 4.88 after. Opponents hit .253 against him (.227 lefties, .262 righties). If he can get out of the first inning, he was ok; batters hit .393 in the first inning.

He also had a 2.38 ERA against the Flubbies, which I like to see ;)

Probably #2 or #3 in the rotation

FarWestChicago
12-12-2001, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by NUCatsFan


According to ESPN for the 2001 season....

3.15 ERA at home, 5.19 on the road. 9-8 overall (7-2, 2-6). Had 1 bad month (August) where he had an 8.35 ERA; all other months 4.5 or lower (except for his one game in October)Actually, the Gain'ts got to the point where they wouldn't even pitch him in September because he kept blowing games. I heard Brian Sabean on the radio two different times absolutely furious at Estes. I have never heard him go off on another player like that. Sabean is a good GM. If he thinks Estes sucks, I'll go with him over ESPN.

bringbackrobin
12-12-2001, 05:40 PM
Hmmm...Sounds kind of like Bobby Howry as a starter. That's somebody we need to go out and get.

RichieRichAllen
12-12-2001, 05:40 PM
Some more info on Estes. Based on this, he seems to be #1 starter material. Giving up Lee for him would make sense.

Biography
Every team is looking for the type of pitcher who can end a losing streak before it becomes unmanageable. Shawn is that kind of "stopper" for the Giants. In 2000, he went 7-3, with three complete games and a 3.83 ERA, in 12 starts following San Francisco defeats. Shawn averaged just under 7.0 innings in those contests. Benefiting from the majors' best run support, he went 15-6, with a 4.26 ERA, on the season, finishing second in the National League in winning percentage (.714). Shawn also helped himself at the plate, driving in 10 runs and pacing the team with 11 sacrifice bunts. One of his most memorable outings took place on May 24 vs. Montreal when he tossed a shutout and hit his first career grand slam in an 18-0 rout.

Shawn throws two fastballs; a four-seamer that hits the middle 90's and a two-seamer with sinking action. He also throws a changeup and a wicked curveball that's just murder on lefthanded hitters. Shawn was one of baseball's top pitchers in 1997 -- his first full season in the majors -- when he went 19-5 with a 3.18 ERA. He tied for second in the NL in wins and was eighth in strikeouts (181). And remember what we said about him being a stopper? Shawn went a perfect 9-0 in 14 starts following a Giants defeat in 1997.








Originally posted by NUCatsFan


According to ESPN for the 2001 season....

3.15 ERA at home, 5.19 on the road. 9-8 overall (7-2, 2-6). Had 1 bad month (August) where he had an 8.35 ERA; all other months 4.5 or lower (except for his one game in October)

3.51 before ASB, 4.88 after. Opponents hit .253 against him (.227 lefties, .262 righties). If he can get out of the first inning, he was ok; batters hit .393 in the first inning.

He also had a 2.38 ERA against the Flubbies, which I like to see ;)

Probably #2 or #3 in the rotation

guillen4life13
12-13-2001, 07:07 PM
Look. It's quite obvious that pitching wins championships!


The Yankees have the Rocket and Moose, followed by Pettite, El Duque, and then a # 5 starter (i forgot who it is, but he's pretty good if i remember rite)

The D'Backs have Schilling and Johnson.

The White Sox had Siro!!! SIRO AS THEIR #1 STARTER!!!

They won 95 games, but not a world series.

There you go. It's right on a plate for you.