PDA

View Full Version : Good or Bad Trade?


OfficerKarkovice
12-13-2001, 10:27 AM
Would you have made this trade if you were KW?

MarqSox
12-13-2001, 11:19 AM
While I think the trade is a bad move, I gotta give KW credit where it's due: He's going for it all. We always talk about how we're sick of the 85-year rebuilding project. Well, there's finally a GM in this town who isn't always building for the future. The Sox probably won't win it all this year, but hey -- at least we're taking a shot finally. I'll probably regret it in 5 years when KW scraps the minor league system, but we've already tried the whole build for the future thing and it's failed repeatedly. :(:

voodoochile
12-13-2001, 11:27 AM
I like it.

Lowe was a middle reliever (regardless of how well he did in spot starts).

Kip was wishy washy and never did put a whole season together in his 3 years with the club.

Fogg was unproven and definitely not a part of the plans for the next couple of years when he will be 26.

The only question will be if Kip suddenly turns it on and becomes consistent.

SP (as of today)
Burly-Mon
Ritchie
Glover
Garland
Wright

Looks better than it did, No?

We wanted a veteran starter, we got a veteran starter. What's the issue here?

Kilroy
12-13-2001, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
We wanted a veteran starter, we got a veteran starter. What's the issue here?

I like it to a point. I hate seeing Lowe go. This would have been a sweet deal if Ritchie were added and Lowe was still in our bullpen.

Question: didnt you get a sinking feeling when you typed out the upcoming year's rotation and you included Wright? That name doesnt give me a warm and fuzzy. Maybe Parque instead of Wright? But again, no confidence there either. He does have some experience tho...

Iwritecode
12-13-2001, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I like it.

Lowe was a middle reliever (regardless of how well he did in spot starts).

Kip was wishy washy and never did put a whole season together in his 3 years with the club.

Fogg was unproven and definitely not a part of the plans for the next couple of years when he will be 26.

The only question will be if Kip suddenly turns it on and becomes consistent.

SP (as of today)
Burly-Mon
Ritchie
Glover
Garland
Wright

Looks better than it did, No?

We wanted a veteran starter, we got a veteran starter. What's the issue here?

As the fifth starter, it's really up in the air between Wright, Parque, Biddle and possible (but very unlikely) Rauch. Anyone who doesn't make the starting 5 will strengthen the BP.

voodoochile
12-13-2001, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I like it to a point. I hate seeing Lowe go. This would have been a sweet deal if Ritchie were added and Lowe was still in our bullpen.

Question: didnt you get a sinking feeling when you typed out the upcoming year's rotation and you included Wright? That name doesnt give me a warm and fuzzy. Maybe Parque instead of Wright? But again, no confidence there either. He does have some experience tho...

Yeah, I had a brain fart on Butter... He is more likely to be the 5th starter.

I still like Wright. I am in the minority, but I love his stuff if he can just get his head together.

raul12
12-13-2001, 11:56 AM
you said that kip never did put a full season together...very true, but remember ritchie started out 0-8. ritchie hasn't gone the distance either...

let's hope that the 2nd half ritchie is the real ritchie and not the first half. I still hate to see lowe go, but no sense crying over spilled milk.

Iwritecode
12-13-2001, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by raul12
you said that kip never did put a full season together...very true, but remember ritchie started out 0-8. ritchie hasn't gone the distance either...

let's hope that the 2nd half ritchie is the real ritchie and not the first half. I still hate to see lowe go, but no sense crying over spilled milk.

Hey raul, what's up with your signature? What do you mean not in here? I'm here! :smile:

czalgosz
12-13-2001, 11:58 AM
I won't miss Lowe, but I think that the Sox will miss Josh Fogg. The only thing that mitigates that IMO is keeping Foulke.

Iwritecode
12-13-2001, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I won't miss Lowe, but I think that the Sox will miss Josh Fogg. The only thing that mitigates that IMO is keeping Foulke.

You won't miss Fogg if Garland or Rauch develop like we hope they do.

voodoochile
12-13-2001, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I won't miss Lowe, but I think that the Sox will miss Josh Fogg. The only thing that mitigates that IMO is keeping Foulke.

FOGG? You miss FOGG? This guy is 24 and couldn't crack the big league club with tons of pitching injuries until September callups. He is a throw in who didn't have a slot on the club this year or next. 13 innings does not a big league pitcher make.

you said that kip never did put a full season together...very true, but remember ritchie started out 0-8. ritchie hasn't gone the distance either...

let's hope that the 2nd half ritchie is the real ritchie and not the first half. I still hate to see lowe go, but no sense crying over spilled milk.

Ritchie had an injury the first half. He also pitched 200 innings regardless of what his final record was. Veteran fastball pitchers don't come cheap and with good reason.

raul12
12-13-2001, 12:04 PM
iwc--i've always given you the benefit of the doubt! but if kw is in here, that statement isn't true anymore...

(crappy ISDN...i'm all the way in bufu, so it's the only option....other than a regular connection that times out every 5 minutes...)

raul12
12-13-2001, 12:08 PM
i'm not saying ritchie isn't quality, but a career ~.500 pitcher isn't going to get us to the WS as a #2 starter. if he keeps improving, then fine, i can live with it, but then that gets back to the old question...."when are we going to go for it all?"

CerberusWG
12-13-2001, 03:19 PM
IMO we need to trade Wright. His knuckle curve looks flat as hell when he throws it up. I know it's a deceptive pitch, but it looks horrid compared to Mussina's.

Randar68
12-13-2001, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
While I think the trade is a bad move, I gotta give KW credit where it's due: He's going for it all. We always talk about how we're sick of the 85-year rebuilding project. Well, there's finally a GM in this town who isn't always building for the future. The Sox probably won't win it all this year, but hey -- at least we're taking a shot finally.

This has to be some of the worst logic around, IMO:
1) You don't make trades just to make trades
2) You don't fill your needs with players half as capable as desired
3) You don't overpay because, "I want it, and I want it NOWWWW!" Patience is a virtue it appears Kenny lacks
4) You don't flush your system down the toilet by overpaying for a couple years...


I'll probably regret it in 5 years when KW scraps the minor league system, but we've already tried the whole build for the future thing and it's failed repeatedly. :(:

Yes, 3-4 years from now, when all of these players are gone, and players like Lowe and Kip are contributing elsewhere, and we have nothing but a couple of Central titles to show for it, then yes, you will regret it. Kenny is not making bold moves like signing 26-28 year-old #1 pitchers. He thinks giving away some of your most important and valuable players for #3 starters is the way to win championships. I admire some of your attitudes and positive outlooks, but right now I cannot even handle hearing about Kenny and his magic 8-ball trades...


In 5 years from now, when we still have 0 WS titles since the 191x's, and our system is totally devastated, I will be interested to hear what some of you will be saying about KW then. I doubt it will be, "at least he took some chances".

Taking chances to take chances is a good way to live a short life...

KempersRS
12-13-2001, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
While I think the trade is a bad move, I gotta give KW credit where it's due: He's going for it all. We always talk about how we're sick of the 85-year rebuilding project. Well, there's finally a GM in this town who isn't always building for the future. The Sox probably won't win it all this year, but hey -- at least we're taking a shot finally. I'll probably regret it in 5 years when KW scraps the minor league system, but we've already tried the whole build for the future thing and it's failed repeatedly. :(:

If you are going to go for it all, GO FOR IT ALL. This is not going for it all. Adding Ritchie doesn't make us a WS team. The problem with the Sox is that they can't decide if they want to be a team who wants to rebuild from the bottom and start a dynasty or a team who just fills new holes with quality proven players. They play it in between, do a little of both, and its a good strategy for getting no where fast.

stefaninsane
12-13-2001, 04:37 PM
Randar and KempersRS hit the nail on the head. If we let Lowe pitch 200 innings, would the results be any different than what Ritchie could give us? Would Scheuler make a deal like this? I think Kip and Fogg could pitch as well out of the pen as Howry or Osuna, and make a few million less. Really, what is the point to this deal? I don't see one. If you want a veteran presence on the staff, why not re-sign the big guy? That's why we picked him up in the first place..

danman31
12-13-2001, 04:40 PM
This trade should be under the TBD category in who wins. Lowe is very expendable, Kip could be good, and Fogg was a question mark that I thought could be a good BP guy. Fogg is also expendable because of the other good pitching we have, so it mostly comes down to Kip for Ritchie. I thought Kip deserved another year, but he has been on/off in his career. Kip was looking great early in 2001. I think that once he got he got hit in the arm in 2 games he started to suck. He may have developed a fear of pitching. Ritchie lost his first 8 decisions last year, but turned it around 2nd half. 0-8 was run support because his era was only 5.15. Not great, but it doesn't deserve 0-8. So each has had a good half and a bad half. Which one will show up in 2002?

voodoochile
12-13-2001, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by stefaninsane
Randar and KempersRS hit the nail on the head. If we let Lowe pitch 200 innings, would the results be any different than what Ritchie could give us? Would Scheuler make a deal like this? I think Kip and Fogg could pitch as well out of the pen as Howry or Osuna, and make a few million less. Really, what is the point to this deal? I don't see one. If you want a veteran presence on the staff, why not re-sign the big guy? That's why we picked him up in the first place..

If we let Lowe throw 200+ innings, his ERA would rise to the mid 5's at least before his arm fell off... He is NOT that type of pitcher, never has been, never will be...

Daver
12-13-2001, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by danman31
I thought Kip deserved another year, but he has been on/off in his career.?

That Dog won't hunt.

stefaninsane
12-13-2001, 04:45 PM
If Ritchie didn't face another pitcher batting 3 times a game, his era would likely be in the 5's too.

guillen4life13
12-13-2001, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by stefaninsane
If Ritchie didn't face another pitcher batting 3 times a game, his era would likely be in the 5's too.

u got a point there.

IMHO, I think that people like Greg Maddux who have ERA's in the 2.xx range, would have 3.xx ranges in the AL. It's basically taking away a .150 hitter, and adding a .300 hitter who hits home runs and knocks in many runs (aka Frank Thomas, who is actually more like .320).

RedPinStripes
12-13-2001, 04:52 PM
I don't think Kip will ever amount to anything. He's too much of a sissy. Sox mgt had it in for Lowe for some reason. i had high hopes for Fogg. I wasn't happy to see him go.

If ritchie won 11 games with pitt, he can do much better here. I think we could have kept 1 pitcher out of the deal and they could have kept that half assed catcher they gave us.

voodoochile
12-13-2001, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by stefaninsane
If Ritchie didn't face another pitcher batting 3 times a game, his era would likely be in the 5's too.

Time will tell, but he at least has way more tools than Lowe has and also has the durability that most of our pitchers have been lacking. This was a good trade for 3 pitchers who are really middle releivers and may not have even had a slot on the team come spring time.

This also opens up slots for some minor leaguers who are major league ready, but need experience on this level. Now guys like Wright and Ginter can work as middle relievers and develop their stuff against better hitters, while hopefully gaining confidence and developing into starters.

I just don't get some of the fan's fascination with a 30 year old career middle reliever like Lowe, a struggling headcase "prospect" like Kip and a guy with 13 innings on the major league level who doesn't have a spot on the parent club.

Something had to give. We got a good solid pitcher with good stuff who can throw 200+ innings, is a hard worker, has above average stuff whose teammates loved him.

The fans loved the last major trade the Sox made which included our top pitcher from the previous year, but it didn't work out. Maybe this one that the fans hate and includes 3 guys not slated for the opening day rotation will...

Pete_SSAC
12-13-2001, 08:39 PM
I voted for no, although I'm still pretty undeicded. Those that know me know that I've been calling for a left handed Nat. leauge starter for this season, and getting rid of Kip since he's been given all the time, and has shown little for it. Although I wish we could have done better than Ritchie, it could be worse. the only thing that really irkes me about it is the loss of Fogg. I wish there was a way we could keep him, and ditch Lee Evans, but alas.

We'll see....

Now, C. Lee for Giles and I'll be a happy man again! :D:

- Pete

PaleHoseGeorge
12-13-2001, 08:41 PM
Am I the only one confused whether to vote "yes" or "no" because I'm not sure whether the question is "bad trade" or "good trade"?

:cool:

FarWestChicago
12-13-2001, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Am I the only one confused whether to vote "yes" or "no" because I'm not sure whether the question is "bad trade" or "good trade"?

:cool: Hey, you have a point there. What the heck is the question? :smile:

Jerry_Manuel
12-13-2001, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Am I the only one confused whether to vote "yes" or "no" because I'm not sure whether the question is "bad trade" or "good trade"?

:cool:

No, you are not alone.

kermittheefrog
12-13-2001, 09:49 PM
BAD TRADE! :angry:

Todd Ritchie is not the kind of guy you give up 3 players for! I don't really dislike Ritchie, I think Ritchie will be a useful 3 or 4 starter type. The problem is we gave up too much. I think Kip Wells alone could be as good as Todd Ritchie and the rest of what I have to say I'll save for the next BTN. GRRRRRRRR

Bmr31
12-13-2001, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
BAD TRADE! :angry:

Todd Ritchie is not the kind of guy you give up 3 players for! I don't really dislike Ritchie, I think Ritchie will be a useful 3 or 4 starter type. The problem is we gave up too much. I think Kip Wells alone could be as good as Todd Ritchie and the rest of what I have to say I'll save for the next BTN. GRRRRRRRR

youre right kermie. Ive been saying the same things all night long.......

OfficerKarkovice
12-13-2001, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Am I the only one confused whether to vote "yes" or "no" because I'm not sure whether the question is "bad trade" or "good trade"?

:cool:

If you would simply read the original thread it states: "Would you make this trade if you were KW?"

Bmr31
12-13-2001, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by OfficerKarkovice


If you would simply read the original thread it states: "Would you make this trade if you were KW?"


ummmm if i were KW, of course i would have made this trade. He did, right? :)

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31



ummmm if i were KW, of course i would have made this trade. He did, right? :)

Yeah, that's like saying if you're an idiot who runs into walls, would you run into walls?

Hey wait a second, that could be interpretted as me making fun of Rowand and I didn't even think of it that way. Excellent I'm tearing the man apart in my subconsious too, MWUHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by guillen4life13


u got a point there.

IMHO, I think that people like Greg Maddux who have ERA's in the 2.xx range, would have 3.xx ranges in the AL. It's basically taking away a .150 hitter, and adding a .300 hitter who hits home runs and knocks in many runs (aka Frank Thomas, who is actually more like .320).

No those guys play defence in the NL. The pitchers hit poorly but does the bottom of the order really jack in an extra run against not to mention the fact the pitchers move runners and bat only 1 hit in 8 worse then the average bottom of the order guy.

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 01:31 AM
Originally posted by Mathew


No those guys play defence in the NL. The pitchers hit poorly but does the bottom of the order really jack in an extra run against not to mention the fact the pitchers move runners and bat only 1 hit in 8 worse then the average bottom of the order guy.

So basically what you're saying is there isn't a big difference between an average pitcher and an average DH. I'll give you one guess as to who just lost all his credibility.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 01:35 AM
Pitchers bat last don't they, do DH's bat last? I'm saying pitchers take the lineup spot of a Royce Clayton. Frank Thomas would play 1st base or even left field(Barry Bonds).

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
Pitchers bat last don't they, do DH's bat last? I'm saying pitchers take the lineup spot of a Royce Clayton. Frank Thomas would play 1st base or even left field(Barry Bonds).

But a pitcher isn't being replaced by a second shortstop, he's being replaced by the next best bat the team has that wouldn't fit into the lineup because of his position. It doesn't matter where the pitcher bats, it just matters who is replacing him.

Nonetheless if you think there isn't a huge difference between the average worst regular in a major league lineup and a pitcher that's still pretty sad.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
Pitchers bat last don't they, do DH's bat last? I'm saying pitchers take the lineup spot of a Royce Clayton. Frank Thomas would play 1st base or even left field(Barry Bonds).


ummmmmm my brain hurts after that one, lol

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31



ummmmmm my brain hurts after that one, lol

Don't blame me! I tried to warn you!

I'm still going :o: from when I first read that.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 01:54 AM
1 in 8 is .125 in B.A. Rockies Astros,Cardinals,Diamonbacks,Giants.
Deflate E.R.A.?

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


Don't blame me! I tried to warn you!

I'm still going :o: from when I first read that.


im still trying to compute the information. My brain is still confused.....

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
1 in 8 is .125 in B.A. Rockies Astros,Cardinals,Diamonbacks,Giants.
Deflate E.R.A.?

I don't even know what you're trying to say but if you really wanna know the DH difference why don't you try asking a guy like Jaime Navarro! LOL!

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
1 in 8 is .125 in B.A. Rockies Astros,Cardinals,Diamonbacks,Giants.
Deflate E.R.A.?

can you please explain this post? Its too late at night for me to think.

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31



im still trying to compute the information. My brain is still confused.....

I think he's trying to say .125 isn't a big difference in batting average. Maybe he's right, it's only like 1.5x the difference between Ichiro and Josh Paul.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I think he's trying to say .125 isn't a big difference in batting average. Maybe he's right, it's only like 1.5x the difference between Ichiro and Josh Paul.

Oh really? well .125 would about equal the difference between ted williams famous season and royce last season.... :)

CLR01
12-14-2001, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


can you please explain this post? Its too late at night for me to think.


Nice excuse, but i think he is trying to say 1-8 pitchers has a BA of .125. But i am an idiot so who knows.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by CLR01



Nice excuse, but i think he is trying to say 1-8 pitchers has a BA of .125. But i am an idiot so who knows.

whoooooa. Youre an idiot and youre explaining this to me? What does that make me???? :D:

RedPinStripes
12-14-2001, 02:06 AM
Round and round we go!

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by RedPinStripes
Round and round we go!


yeah.... :gulp: :gulp:

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 02:08 AM
I can't believe we just had an arguement about whether or not there is a big hitting difference between pitchers and positioned players. This is a sad day.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I can't believe we just had an arguement about whether or not there is a big hitting difference between pitchers and positioned players. This is a sad day.

I wouldnt call it an arguement. Maybe a misunderstanding? I HOPE a misunderstanding....

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:11 AM
What I am saying is most A.L. teams' offence would suffer because they don't play that type of game, but N.L. lineups are not a .300 35 100 guy weaker than A.L. teams. Their numbers are similar I think.

I'll try to explain my logic.


If a pitcher bats .125
A bottom of the order guy bats .250

longshot7
12-14-2001, 02:11 AM
I'm not sure if this has anything to do with anything,
but I like having the pitcher hit better than the DH.

As much as I live and breathe my Sox,
the NL is much more fun to watch.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
What I am saying is most A.L. teams' offence would suffer because they don't play that type of game, but N.L. lineups are not a .300 35 100 guy weaker than A.L. teams. Their numbers are similar I think.

I'll try to explain my logic.


If a pitcher bats .125
A bottom of the order guy bats .250

ummm dude, the NL teams still has that bottom of the order guy hitting .250, hes just batting 8th instead of 9th, sir.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:13 AM
I'm not saying pitchers hit as well as DH's, I'm saying N.L. teams don't generat 1 less or even .5 less run per game because of the rule.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
I'm not saying pitchers hit as well as DH's, I'm saying N.L. teams don't generat 1 less or even .5 less run per game because of the rule.


ummmmmmm they dont?

FarWestChicago
12-14-2001, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by longshot7
I'm not sure if this has anything to do with anything,
but I like having the pitcher hit better than the DH.

As much as I live and breathe my Sox,
the NL is much more fun to watch. I can't agree with that one. One thing I hate about NL games is when you get a couple guys on base and you start getting excited, and then it doesn't mean anything because the pitcher is in the on deck circle so you just walk the #8 guy and fan the pitcher. I find that boring, despite all I hear about how "exciting" NL baseball is.

GASHWOUND
12-14-2001, 02:16 AM
Originally posted by CLR01
But i am an idiot so who knows.

There goes CLR again with stating the obvious.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


ummm dude, the NL teams still has that bottom of the order guy hitting .250, hes just batting 8th instead of 9th, sir.


Yes, the pitcher has not taken anything from the meat of the order which generates much of the offence. He just weakens the bottom slightly but in B.A. terms only by about .125. If N.L. teams are 1 run lower per game I'll shut up.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I can't agree with that one. One thing I hate about NL games is when you get a couple guys on base and you start getting excited, and then it doesn't mean anything because the pitcher is in the on deck circle so you just walk the #8 guy and fan the pitcher. I find that boring, despite all I hear about how "exciting" NL baseball is.

well it depends west. Some of those 12-11, 4 hour AL games, become very boring also.....

WinningUgly!
12-14-2001, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
I can't believe we just had an arguement about whether or not there is a big hitting difference between pitchers and positioned players. This is a sad day.


It all depends on who your DH is...
:harold

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:18 AM
Originally posted by Mathew



Yes, the pitcher has not taken anything from the meat of the order which generates much of the offence. He just weakens the bottom slightly but in B.A. terms only by about .125. If N.L. teams are 1 run lower per game I'll shut up.

dont quote me, but i believe they score around .75 a game less. EACH team that is.

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I can't agree with that one. One thing I hate about NL games is when you get a couple guys on base and you start getting excited, and then it doesn't mean anything because the pitcher is in the on deck circle so you just walk the #8 guy and fan the pitcher. I find that boring, despite all I hear about how "exciting" NL baseball is.

Excitement is whenever the manager doesn't switch to a lefty reliever in the bottom of the 8th to face the fierce Billy Spiers.

FarWestChicago
12-14-2001, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


well it depends west. Some of those 12-11, 4 hour AL games, become very boring also..... Yeah, but at least they have to pitch to at least 8 guys (unless you have Clayton on your team :smile: ) instead of pitching to 7 max like they do in the NL.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!



It all depends on who your DH is...
:harold


LOL!!!! Ok i nominate that, the funniest post of the week!

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I can't agree with that one. One thing I hate about NL games is when you get a couple guys on base and you start getting excited, and then it doesn't mean anything because the pitcher is in the on deck circle so you just walk the #8 guy and fan the pitcher. I find that boring, despite all I hear about how "exciting" NL baseball is.

I don't like intentional walks to Rey Ordonez either, but I like the hit and runs and steals and bunting, situational hitting it represents. The A.L. has all these things but they are accented by the no DH rule sometimes.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Yeah, but at least they have to pitch to at least 8 guys (unless you have Clayton on your team :smile: ) instead of pitching to 7 max like they do in the NL.

Every baseball game is boring at times. These are the broadcasters need to make it more exciting.

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!



It all depends on who your DH is...
:harold

ROFL!!!! Guess you can't blame Mathew after watching Harold DH for us! This is the funniest thing I've seen in like a month.

GASHWOUND
12-14-2001, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
I can't agree with that one. One thing I hate about NL games is when you get a couple guys on base and you start getting excited, and then it doesn't mean anything because the pitcher is in the on deck circle so you just walk the #8 guy and fan the pitcher. I find that boring, despite all I hear about how "exciting" NL baseball is.

Exactly, thats why I like the DH rule.
:hurt
"What, there's no DH in the NL?"

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


ROFL!!!! Guess you can't blame Mathew after watching Harold DH for us! This is the funniest thing I've seen in like a month.

whoooooa, we are agreeing way too much, kermie. :?:

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


dont quote me, but i believe they score around .75 a game less. EACH team that is.

Not quoting you just referencing so you know what I'm saying. Is that this year past or a trend over many? How about the hitter friendly parks in the N.L. I guess they use that .75 thing to justify building those things.

CLR01
12-14-2001, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Every baseball game is boring at times. These are the broadcasters need to make it more exciting.


Where is KingX when you need him.

longshot7
12-14-2001, 02:24 AM
"Every baseball game is boring at times. These are the broadcasters need to make it more exciting"


yeah, thank god we have hawk and dj.
I don't know what I'd do...

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Mathew


Not quoting you just referencing so you know what I'm saying. Is that this year past or a trend over many? How about the hitter friendly parks in the N.L. I guess they use that .75 thing to justify building those things.

dude i was just guessing at that number, but its a consistent number, whatever it is.....

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by longshot7
"Every baseball game is boring at times. These are the broadcasters need to make it more exciting"


yeah, thank god we have hawk and dj.
I don't know what I'd do...

honestly? Hawk and Dj are weak.....

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:26 AM
What's that stat about Frank Dhing vs. playing 1st? Is he better hitting in the field or off the bench.(Not part of my claim, just curious and I honestly can't remember.)

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:27 AM
We've done well to get close to matching the Ritchie post, see I can use my powers for good aswell as evil. Being 1 vs. the world is fun and I'm trying to make sense and not just argue because I said so. :cool:

longshot7
12-14-2001, 02:28 AM
he's better in the field - but I don't have the exact numbers.

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


honestly? Hawk and Dj are weak.....

At least Hawk is a better broadcaster than he is a general manager.

:hawk
"Bye bye farm system!"

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
We've done well to get close to matching the Ritchie post, see I can use my powers for good aswell as evil. Being 1 vs. the world is fun and I'm trying to make sense and not just argue because I said so. :cool:

Hey now! Thats my angle! :)

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


At least Hawk is a better broadcaster than he is a general manager.

:hawk
"Bye bye farm system!"

what? you didnt like an ancient carlton fisk patroling left field??

CLR01
12-14-2001, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by longshot7
he's better in the field - but I don't have the exact numbers.


Here are some stats from the last three years.


scroll down until you see as 1b


http://espn.go.com/mlb/profiles/splits/3year/batting/4527.html

WinningUgly!
12-14-2001, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
What's that stat about Frank Dhing vs. playing 1st? Is he better hitting in the field or off the bench.(Not part of my claim, just curious and I honestly can't remember.)

:harold
You'd see my numbers skyrocket if I got to play in the field, but I haven't owned a glove since the mid-80's.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


:harold
You'd see my numbers skyrocket if I got to play in the field, but I haven't owned a glove since the mid-80's.

LOL! or a bat for that matter...........

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


:harold
You'd see my numbers skyrocket if I got to play in the field, but I haven't owned a glove since the mid-80's.

Even if they did skyrocket I still don't think we'd see them :(:

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by CLR01

Here are some stats from the last three years.
scroll down until you see as 1b
http://espn.go.com/mlb/profiles/splits/3year/batting/4527.html

Why do you guys think that is? Is he involved in the game more or is it coincidence? I think he's a better fielder than Leifer and how many big hitters would have hurt themselves diving for a ball. Not that it's a good idea but at least commendable.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by Mathew


Why do you guys think that is? Is he involved in the game more or is it coincidence? I think he's a better fielder than Leifer and how many big hitters would have hurt themselves diving for a ball. Not that it's a good idea but at least commendable.

yeah i dont remember frank diving too often. Its too bad he got hurt, actually hustling.

CLR01
12-14-2001, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by Mathew


Why do you guys think that is? Is he involved in the game more or is it coincidence? I think he's a better fielder than Leifer and how many big hitters would have hurt themselves diving for a ball. Not that it's a good idea but at least commendable.


Back during his slump in 1999 i heard Hawk talking about that. They were saying it was more mental. When he is playing he desnt have time to think about striking out or popping out with runners on base, but when he is DHing he has until his next at bat to think about it.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by CLR01



Back during his slump in 1999 i heard Hawk talking about that. They were saying it was more mental. When he is playing he desnt have time to think about striking out or popping out with runners on base, but when he is DHing he has until his next at bat to think about it.

That makes sense.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:43 AM
We'll have to give him a slinky to play with or something?

CLR01
12-14-2001, 02:50 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
We'll have to give him a slinky to play with or something?


get him an xbox.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:52 AM
Then he could sign Jose Canseco on his MLB 2002 video game!

WinningUgly!
12-14-2001, 02:54 AM
Originally posted by CLR01



get him an xbox.

He should keep his laptop in the dugout with him. Between at-bats he can hook up with us here in the Sox Clubhouse. We could tell him things he needs to work on...or maybe just tell him to smack Royce when he gets back in the dugout! :D:

CLR01
12-14-2001, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
Then he could sign Jose Canseco on his MLB 2002 video game!



Yeah, the only problem would be if JM and KW were playing it and decided to try some things based on the video game. It could get ugly.



"Hey Jerry, bat Royce third. It worked on the video game, we won the series."

:KW

"Good Idea!"

:jerry

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:58 AM
By the way winning ugly. I was in that Sandbox league with you a while back when you first turned me on to this site.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 02:59 AM
I talked about that the other day I used to bat Chris Snopek 3 in Big Hurt baseball and he put up hall of fame #s in one year!

kermittheefrog
12-14-2001, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by CLR01




Yeah, the only problem would be if JM and KW were playing it and decided to try some things based on the video game. It could get ugly.



You kiddin CLR? Technology has gotten to the point where video games are smarter than Jerry and Kenny.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 03:14 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


You kiddin CLR? Technology has gotten to the point where video games are smarter than Jerry and Kenny.

and thats impressive? :) :)

Mathew
12-14-2001, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


You kiddin CLR? Technology has gotten to the point where video games are smarter than Jerry and Kenny.

So is my right pinky.

WinningUgly!
12-14-2001, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by Mathew
By the way winning ugly. I was in that Sandbox league with you a while back when you first turned me on to this site.

Wasn't your team "Why does my team suck as bad as the White Sox"? Or something like that? Glad to see you became a regular here! :gulp:

CLR01
12-14-2001, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


You kiddin CLR? Technology has gotten to the point where video games are smarter than Jerry and Kenny.


Yeah but they still have to carry it out and you know they would **** it up.

Bmr31
12-14-2001, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


Wasn't your team "Why does my team suck as bad as the White Sox"? Or something like that? Glad to see you became a regular here! :gulp:

damn and i wasnt gonna drink tonight..... :gulp:

Mathew
12-14-2001, 03:24 AM
Originally posted by WinningUgly!


Wasn't your team "Why does my team suck as bad as the White Sox"? Or something like that? Glad to see you became a regular here! :gulp:

They were 14 and 29 give me a break. I think I changed it a few times. I ran 21 teams last year it was insane, the ones that were really bad I put more effort into the name than the lineup.

WinningUgly!
12-14-2001, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by Mathew


They were 14 and 29 give me a break. I think I changed it a few times. I ran 21 teams last year it was insane, the ones that were really bad I put more effort into the name than the lineup.

Yeah, I can't even remember what my team name was in that league. I know it was a "dead team" that I took over. I made a pretty good run too.

Mathew
12-14-2001, 03:33 AM
Most of the dead teams I picked up had been in the mourgue too long.

DrCrawdad
12-14-2001, 06:05 PM
I'm all for going for it now, however I don't think that means giving it all away. KW has given up too much. I would have liked to see him give up only two of those pitchers. If KW had to throw in a third couldn't it have been Barcelo?

I hate to bring up this comparison, but in comparing recent trades by Andy McPhail and Kenny Williams it seems to me that McPhail has done much better than KW. KW seems to consistently give up too much for too little. And BTW I sure hope KW gets over the "veteran" thing. So much for the "Kids Can Play."

I'll gladly eat my words IF KW leads the Sox to a WS win. I guess this is the year to go for it with the Indians odd moves (Ricky Gutierrez to play 2nd instead of Robbie?).

KW Trades:
Sirotka for David Wells, failure.
Chad Bradford for Miguel Olivo. Couldn't KW have received a little more than this light hitting catcher?
Eyre for Glover. The only KW deal that I like without any hesitation.

Jerry_Manuel
12-14-2001, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by DrCrawdad
I'll gladly eat my words IF KW leads the Sox to a WS win. I guess this is the year to go for it with the Indians odd moves (Ricky Gutierrez to play 2nd instead of Robbie?).


Chad Bradford for Miguel Olivo. Couldn't KW have received a little more than this light hitting catcher?


As long as Jerry Reisndorf owns this team the Sox will not win the World Series. When did Chad Bradford become a stud reliever? Olivo may not hit the cover off the ball but he is great behind the plate.

DrCrawdad
12-14-2001, 06:10 PM
I'll vote bad trade and hope that I'm wrong.

The poll question is an either or choice, not a yes or no.

Huisj
12-14-2001, 11:58 PM
So basically, the question in the poll is really asking whether or not it's a neutral trade. If it's good, say yes; if it's bad say yes; if it will do nothing for either team say no. What a pointless poll, sheesh.

Anyways, back on the thing about DH's vs. pitchers . . . obviously a DH is a better hitter than a pitcher. And also, NL teams all have lousy hitting position players just like AL teams do. It would seem logical then that pitching would be easier for NL pitchers, and I think there is some evidence to that--jaime navarro was mentioned earlier, and also steve traschsel totally sucked in the AL, and some pitcher who have gone to the NL have suddenly become good. At the same time, it's not like the pitcher always bats every time his spot comes up in the order--pinch hitters hit in that spot often, so that takes away some of the difference at least. Also, pitchers often will be used as sacrifices to advance runners, creating possible jams for pitchers . . . I guess what i'm trying to get at is that while it's true that NL stats may be a bit better for pitchers because of no DH, it's probably not as big of a factor as it first seems. So many things can go into an ERA of any given pitcher, I think only Bill James could figure out a way to evaluate them fairly on a statistical basis.

Here's a sort of unrelated thing I was wondering about-why are all the big home run hitters in the last 4 or 5 years in the NL (McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Gonzalez). This could possibly point to NL pitchers being weaker than AL ones--it seems like lots of mediocre hitters in the AL go to the NL and suddenly are huge (exception of Boone i guess). Maybe it's the small parks partly too.

I dunno, thinking about it makes me go :?:

LongDistanceFan
12-15-2001, 01:27 AM
this trade sucks, we could've used kipper in a better trade........ to get something else.

OfficerKarkovice
12-15-2001, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Huisj
So basically, the question in the poll is really asking whether or not it's a neutral trade. If it's good, say yes; if it's bad say yes; if it will do nothing for either team say no. What a pointless poll, sheesh.

READ THE 1ST POST!!! CAN U NOT FIGURE THAT OUT!!!!!!

AsInWreck
12-15-2001, 12:51 PM
I like that the sox got a solid starter/ but I agree w/ long distance that we could have used kip
in a better trade/also the fact that the sox gave up 3 healthy arms while counting on at least 3-4
players coming off surgery makes me question the trade/but hey sox need a solid starter(or 2) and that's what we got

dugwood31
12-16-2001, 12:52 AM
I'm new at WSI and have enjoyed reading all the posts. It seems to me that the Sox are a better team with Ritchie. He throws 200+ every year, and he strikes out twice as many as he walks.

CLR01
12-16-2001, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by dugwood31
I'm new at WSI and have enjoyed reading all the posts. It seems to me that the Sox are a better team with Ritchie. He throws 200+ every year, and he strikes out twice as many as he walks.


Welcome to WSI dugwood31. :gulp:

Daver
12-16-2001, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by CLR01



Welcome to WSI dugwood31.

Welcome aboard.

FarWestChicago
12-16-2001, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by dugwood31
I'm new at WSI and have enjoyed reading all the posts. It seems to me that the Sox are a better team with Ritchie. He throws 200+ every year, and he strikes out twice as many as he walks. Welcome to WSI, dugwood! :gulp:

CLR01
12-16-2001, 01:07 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Welcome to WSI, dugwood! :gulp:


Quit copying me. :smile:

Bmr31
12-16-2001, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by CLR01



Welcome to WSI dugwood31. :gulp:

whoooooa clr, youre not old enough to drink! :gulp:

WinningUgly!
12-16-2001, 02:44 AM
Originally posted by CLR01



Quit copying me. :smile:
Yeah, come up with something different....
dugwood31, welcome to WSI! :D: :gulp:

Jerry_Manuel
12-16-2001, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31
whoooooa clr, youre not old enough to drink! :gulp:

If I'm not mistaken CLR is 23.

GASHWOUND
12-16-2001, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


If I'm not mistaken CLR is 23.

Acually, he's 20. born 1981

Jerry_Manuel
12-16-2001, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by GASHWOUND
Acually, he's 20. born 1981

WOW! Wound checking his facts, I like it.

GASHWOUND
12-16-2001, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


WOW! Wound checking his facts, I like it.

Well, I didn't actually go and look at CLR's profile, I just remembered from when I first got here i looked at all the profiles. And this subject was brought up in a subject in the PL. With Soxheads I believe. :gulp:

doublem23
12-16-2001, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog
You kiddin CLR? Technology has gotten to the point where video games are smarter than Jerry and Kenny.

Yeah... That happened back in like 1982.

CLR01
12-16-2001, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Bmr31


whoooooa clr, youre not old enough to drink! :gulp:


Yes i am, i just cant buy it. :gulp: