PDA

View Full Version : Winners and Losers from the Winter Meetings


danman31
12-15-2001, 03:32 PM
The Sox made the list of winners at #3 behind the New York teams. I am impressed that this guy felt that way. The only thing that matters is the season though.

Full article (http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1296261.html)

Chisox_cali
12-15-2001, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by danman31
The Sox made the list of winners at #3 behind the New York teams. I am impressed that this guy felt that way. The only thing that matters is the season though.

Full article (http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1296261.html)

DAMN YOU DANMAN! :angry: I was just gonna post that.

czalgosz
12-15-2001, 03:42 PM
It's kinda interesting that he mentions Parque in the same sentence as Buehrle and Ritchie.

Parque is one of those guys who I can't tell whether he's a good pitcher or not. In 2000 he had a string May and June where he was outstanding. Since then he's been on-and-off. I really don't know whether to be rooting for him to make the rotation or the bullpen.

danman31
12-15-2001, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Chisox_cali
DAMN YOU DANMAN! :angry: I was just gonna post that.
LOL. Sorry, but I got to it first. Just don't :whiner: about it.

Jerry_Manuel
12-15-2001, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
It's kinda interesting that he mentions Parque in the same sentence as Buehrle and Ritchie.

Parque is one of those guys who I can't tell whether he's a good pitcher or not. In 2000 he had a string May and June where he was outstanding. Since then he's been on-and-off. I really don't know whether to be rooting for him to make the rotation or the bullpen.

No use rooting the skipper said he'll be in the rotation. I know he also mentioned the pen late last year but he changed his mind. Which he could do again.

AsInWreck
12-15-2001, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz

Parque is one of those guys who I can't tell whether he's a good pitcher or not.

parque's not bad, but he's got a bad case of crybabyitis/he needs to find the ability to keep a
clear head while on the hill to become a good pitcher-- i think he might be good in s. lowe type
role, as spot starter, long relief and lefty specialist in the pen(i know s lowe isn't lhp)
I think garland will be more effective this year, too, so the sox should still have good front 3

Jerry_Manuel
12-15-2001, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by danman31
I am impressed that this guy felt that way.

Why?


Believe it or not, not everyone in baseball thinks Kip Wells is the best thing since sliced bread like some people seem to. He was worth more 2 or 3 years ago then he is/was now. Fogg is what 26? And couldn't crack the 2001 Sox injured staff until September, what does that tell you? Lowe had his moments where he shined and moments where he looked brutal. Point being is that we get attached to these guys because they have "Chicago" on their jersey and give them this "Superstar" stigma. Outside of Chicago these players aren't thought of as great. Their thought of middle of the road pitchers. Wells had so much hype and pressure on him that now he is just a guy who has the tools but can't get his act together.

Flame away BMR and others.

danman31
12-15-2001, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel
Why?


Believe it or not, not everyone in baseball thinks Kip Wells is the best thing since sliced bread like some people seem to. He was worth more 2 or 3 years ago then he is/was now. Fogg is what 26? And couldn't crack the 2001 Sox injured staff until September, what does that tell you? Lowe had his moments where he shined and moments where he looked brutal. Point being is that we get attached to these guys because they have "Chicago" on their jersey and give them this "Superstar" stigma. Outside of Chicago these players aren't thought of as great. Their thought of middle of the road pitchers. Wells had so much hype and pressure on him that now he is just a guy who has the tools but can't get his act together.

Flame away BMR and others.
That's not where I was going, I was talking about someone thinking that Ritchie was good.

czalgosz
12-15-2001, 04:05 PM
Good points all, Jerry.

The main thing is, regardless of what you think of Todd Ritchie, he's an innings-eater, and they are a rare and prized commodity these days. From the Pirates perspective, they are getting a middle reliever who maybe has two good years left in him, a prized prospect who has never quite lived up to his hype, and a B-level prospect.

I would rather that they gave the Pirates Garland than Kip, though. I always thought that Kip had a higher ceiling, which is maybe why the Pirates wouldn't take Garland.

Daver
12-15-2001, 04:10 PM
The Pirates plan to use Lowe as a closer.

Jerry_Manuel
12-15-2001, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by danman31
That's not where I was going, I was talking about someone thinking that Ritchie was good.

Well he's not Jaime Navarro. I'd like to see him pitch a game with us before I label him bad.

czalgosz
12-15-2001, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by daver
The Pirates plan to use Lowe as a closer.

That's scary.

czalgosz
12-15-2001, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Well he's not Jaime Navarro. I'd like to see him pitch a game with us before I label him bad.

You realize that you've just cursed us by mentioning those two in the same breath, don't you?

Jerry_Manuel
12-15-2001, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I would rather that they gave the Pirates Garland than Kip, though. I always thought that Kip had a higher ceiling, which is maybe why the Pirates wouldn't take Garland.

He might be better then Garland, but he wasn't going to be better here. Who knows what the future will bring for Garland, he improved from 2000 to 2001 so lets wait and see what 2002 brings us.

Jerry_Manuel
12-15-2001, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
You realize that you've just cursed us by mentioning those two in the same breath, don't you?

I didn't curse anything Czal I'm not Kempers. I have 85 years backing me here that the Sox will be/are cursed. Good thing I didn't mention Ken Hill.

GASHWOUND
12-15-2001, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by danman31
The Sox made the list of winners at #3 behind the New York teams. I am impressed that this guy felt that way. The only thing that matters is the season though.

Full article (http://msn.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/mcadam_sean/1296261.html)

Complain, if you wish, about the economic disparity. Argue that the Yankees are making a mockery of the game, that their recent free agent spending spree stands for all that is wrong with baseball.


And complain i will. Damn Spanks!

GASHWOUND
12-15-2001, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by danman31

That's not where I was going, I was talking about someone thinking that Ritchie was good.

And what do you think Ritchie is? Bad?
He's not Curt Shiling, but maybe he can do what Eldred did for us in '2000. When we got him nobody thought he would do diddly squat. And I think Ritchie will do better than Cal did for us in '2000. I still think the Sox gave 1 pitcher to much, but what the hell.

kermittheefrog
12-15-2001, 04:29 PM
What a horrible article. Here's what I think:

Yankees - Sure they are winners because they got everyone they wanted and have limitless resources, they'll always be winners. Some team that actually did something well should be in the top spot, maybe the A's.

Mets - They got an old albeit great second baseman, an old relief pitcher who has had all of one good season and an outfielder who has never played a good full season. This is a team that's still trying to band-aid itself instead of going for the full overhaul it needs.

Sox - You can read my comments on the Ritchie deal on the front page.

A's - They aren't losers. Unlike the Yankees they can't afford to commit 17-19 million to Jason Giambi when he'll be 35, 36 and 37 years old. Sure the Yanks don't ever have to worry about cash but Giambi is probably already past his best years, the A's will be better off with a more cost effective solution. And committing lots of money and several years to Tino Martinez would be a better idea than a one year risk with Dave Justice? Ha!

Tribe - I wish they were losers, they're doing what the Mets should do. Getting rid of their veterans and overhauling. They realized this team is past it's big opportunity and they're retooling. The best thing they could have done for the Sox was continue to cling to their falling apart old regime.

Phillies - Okay they actually screwed up. Seems like the Author of this article, Sean McAdam, is obsessed with players whose names are in the paper rather than real baseball.

czalgosz
12-15-2001, 04:33 PM
I think all that article meant is which teams came out ahead after the Winter Meetings and which ones fell behind. That's all. It wasn't about who had the better organization. It was just about the past week of transactions, not the past 5 years.

kermittheefrog
12-15-2001, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
I think all that article meant is which teams came out ahead after the Winter Meetings and which ones fell behind. That's all. It wasn't about who had the better organization. It was just about the past week of transactions, not the past 5 years.

But it's just stupid to say "Oh the A's didn't keep Jason Giambi so they are losers." This guy is sitting back saying "okay the big names went here so this is who did well."

czalgosz
12-15-2001, 04:47 PM
Well, the A's got worse by losing Giambi, and David Justice is pretty good, but they gave up a solid lefty reliever to get him, and Justice isn't Jason Giambi by any stretch of the imagination.

The Yankees, by signing Giambi and White and replacing Scott Brosius with Robin Ventura, made their offense about 10 times better. Was that only because the Yanks have money to burn? Yes. Is it stupid to judge a team by three days' worth of transactions? Yes. It goes to show you how much space reporters have to fill. But inasmuch as what the article was trying to accomplish (who got better, who got worse in the Winter Meetings), it did that. The article was somewhat pointless, and if you've been following at all, most of the conclusions were obvious, but you can't dispute the conclusions.

kermittheefrog
12-15-2001, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Well, the A's got worse by losing Giambi, and David Justice is pretty good, but they gave up a solid lefty reliever to get him, and Justice isn't Jason Giambi by any stretch of the imagination.

The Yankees, by signing Giambi and White and replacing Scott Brosius with Robin Ventura, made their offense about 10 times better. Was that only because the Yanks have money to burn? Yes. Is it stupid to judge a team by three days' worth of transactions? Yes. It goes to show you how much space reporters have to fill. But inasmuch as what the article was trying to accomplish (who got better, who got worse in the Winter Meetings), it did that. The article was somewhat pointless, and if you've been following at all, most of the conclusions were obvious, but you can't dispute the conclusions.

I think it's easy to dispute the conclusions. I don't think Alomar will help the Mets much ebcause they are trying to cling to a team which is past the point where it was a legitimate contender. Oakland did the right thing in not bringing back Giambi and in bringing in Justice, Guthrie wasn't important to their pen. McAdam mentions losing Izzy but didn't want to bring Isringhausen back because he'd make more money than he's worth, they now haev Billy Koch who makes a fraction of Izzy's money. The conclusions were asnine.

CLR01
12-15-2001, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


He might be better then Garland, but he wasn't going to be better here. Who knows what the future will bring for Garland, he improved from 2000 to 2001 so lets wait and see what 2002 brings us.


Probably a torn labrum.

Jerry_Manuel
12-15-2001, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by CLR01
Probably a torn labrum.


Wouldn't surprise me.

AsInWreck
12-15-2001, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz

I would rather that they gave the Pirates Garland than Kip, though. I always thought that Kip had a higher ceiling, which is maybe why the Pirates wouldn't take Garland.

This is pure crazy speak/garland is the top dog of
heap

Soxheads
12-15-2001, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck


This is pure crazy speak/garland is the top dog of
heap

Personally, I like Jon but I think he needs to have a better than average season to stick around. I think that this is his last good shot, but you never know with the management.

AsInWreck
12-15-2001, 06:15 PM
JG's only 22-23/he's already shown more than most the other young arms, most of whom are 25-26/i don't know who has the most talent physically but mentally I think he can handle the big leagues and
i think the sox should give him time to mature, though i see him being successful in '02-most players aren't wholly successful by the age 23/besides it could be argued that JG already is above average, considering his 3.69 era(or whatever it was) in '02 was close to a run below average.

czalgosz
12-15-2001, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by kermittheefrog


I think it's easy to dispute the conclusions. I don't think Alomar will help the Mets much ebcause they are trying to cling to a team which is past the point where it was a legitimate contender. Oakland did the right thing in not bringing back Giambi and in bringing in Justice, Guthrie wasn't important to their pen. McAdam mentions losing Izzy but didn't want to bring Isringhausen back because he'd make more money than he's worth, they now haev Billy Koch who makes a fraction of Izzy's money. The conclusions were asnine.

First of all, McAdam wasn't talking about money. Money didn't enter into the picture at all. It was purely about talent. The A's losing Isringhausen and Giambi and Guthrie and a prospect and picking up David Justice and Billy Koch is a loss, period. Did the A's really have a choice in the matter? No. But to say that they are a better team now than they were a week ago is asinine. It's not like they're going to take all that money they didn't spend on Giambi and spend it somewhere else. They are just going to try to lose less money than they would if they had to pay him. It's going to hurt the A's in the standings next year. Period, end of story. It's too bad that a good organization like the A's has to end up like this, but that's the way baseball is these days.

Look, I'm not disputing that the A's are making the best of a bad situation and still trying to compete despite their financial troubles, or that the Indians are rebuilding for 2003 and beyond, or that George Steinbrenner has more money than is good for him. But in terms of the 25 men that will take the field opening day 2002 as opposed to 2001, the Yankees will be a better team, the A's a worse team. That's all McAdam was trying to say, and the conclusion is irrefutable.

czalgosz
12-15-2001, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by AsInWreck


This is pure crazy speak/garland is the top dog of
heap

Where's your evidence, aside from a low ERA last year? Look, Garland wasn't good, he was lucky. Which is fine, but you can't out on being lucky for your entire career.

As a pitcher, none of Garland's pitches are particularly dominating. His fastball was good enough to get minor-league hitters out, but not enough to get by big-league talent. Garland needs to rely on control to get batters out, and his control has been spotty.

Kip (2001)-
ERA - 4.79
WHIP - 1.55
K/BB ratio - 1.62

Garland (2001) -
ERA - 3.69
WHIP - 1.52
K/BB ratio - 1.11

Those are the three important stats for pitchers, IMO, and the only one that Garland was better in was ERA. They both gave up about the same number of baserunners per innings pitched, and Kip was a lot better at striking out batters as opposed to walking them.

Maybe Garland can prove me wrong and start dominating hitters. But at least to this point, Kip has shown that he has more potential as a big-league pitcher.