PDA

View Full Version : SOX Sign Jose Contreras to extension


Corlose 15
04-01-2006, 11:53 AM
Just heard Offman on the score report a 3 year $29M deal with Contreras. Wow.

Whitesox4ever
04-01-2006, 11:54 AM
great news

DickAllen72
04-01-2006, 11:55 AM
Yessss! I luvvvvv Contreras. :bandance: :bandance: :bandance:

Three years @ 29M is a STEAL! (in today's market)

This better not be an April Fools joke!

Hangar18
04-01-2006, 11:55 AM
April Fools Joke i'll bet

Mickster
04-01-2006, 11:56 AM
Wow!

Hard to imagine. I'm extremely happy, but thinking long term - who is eventually let go? Garcia, Buehrle, McCarthy... Hell, keep 'em all. 6 deep for years to come? :cool:

Mickster
04-01-2006, 11:57 AM
April Fools Joke i'll bet

Good call.

Corlose 15
04-01-2006, 11:57 AM
Its possibly april fools. They broke in during WS weekly while talking to Brooks Boyer. If its a joke, its incredibly lame.

Realist
04-01-2006, 12:00 PM
http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/images/barnum.jpg
P.T Barnum

Mickster
04-01-2006, 12:07 PM
White Sox weekly is on the Score right now, they are taking calls on the deal. If it is B.S., it's completely lame. Farmer is on now as well and confirmed.

www.670thescore.com

Corlose 15
04-01-2006, 12:15 PM
Farmio made an interesting point about the Sox front office. He mentioned they should follow the Orioles of the 70s philosophy and NEVER trade young pitching.

bgpoppapaul
04-01-2006, 12:24 PM
I'm curious what this means for Brandon McCarthy......Buehrle and Garcia are signed through 2007, right?

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 12:25 PM
Listening to the score now. It's real! Wow!

Mark Buehrle
Freddy Garcia
Jose Contreras
Jon Garland
Javier Vazquez

It's not just that they are signed for 2-3 more years. It's that they are signed to reasonable prices. Think of the trade value!

Dynasty is spelled W-H-I-T-E-S-O-X! :gulp:

Scottiehaswheels
04-01-2006, 12:26 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20060401&content_id=1379745&vkey=pr_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

JohnBasedowYoda
04-01-2006, 12:28 PM
http://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/images/barnum.jpg
P.T Barnum

On a randomness scale with a range of 1 to 245.6 with 245.6 being the most random I give this post a 194.324913

JohnBasedowYoda
04-01-2006, 12:29 PM
I'm curious what this means for Brandon McCarthy......Buehrle and Garcia are signed through 2007, right?

Yeah I really want to see him as a starter at some point and not a guy converted to bullpen.

Corlose 15
04-01-2006, 12:30 PM
KW on the score now.

Beer Can Chicken
04-01-2006, 12:30 PM
I'm curious what this means for Brandon McCarthy......Buehrle and Garcia are signed through 2007, right?

It means someone will be traded at some point.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 12:30 PM
How did Kenny pull this off?

Under terms of the extension, Contreras, who will make $8 million in 2006, now
will be paid $9 million in 2007 and $10 million in 2008 and 2009.

If Contra wins just 15 games this year he would have easily commanded $11-12 mil.

The only thing I can think of is that he loves Cooper & the trainers. It's as if his health concerns & ailments this spring changed his mind.

Barely a mention on ESPNews.

itsnotrequired
04-01-2006, 12:30 PM
http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20060401&content_id=1379745&vkey=pr_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws
Well there you go.

Insane...

robiwho
04-01-2006, 12:32 PM
Good news!

peeonwrigley
04-01-2006, 12:34 PM
Gotta like this signing. The trade value of any starter (and McCarthy) is now solid as no player is the dreaded "one year rental."

I see no reason to make a trade right now, but you can bet come May or June there will be lots of GMs knocking down Kenny's door.

samram
04-01-2006, 12:35 PM
How did Kenny pull this off?

Under terms of the extension, Contreras, who will make $8 million in 2006, now
will be paid $9 million in 2007 and $10 million in 2008 and 2009.

If Contra wins just 15 games this year he would have easily commanded $11-12 mil.

The only thing I can think of is that he loves Cooper & the trainers. It's as if his health concerns & ailments this spring changed his mind.

Barely a mention on ESPNews.

Because if he didn't win 15, he would be seen as a one-year wonder who's around 40 years old. That means he would command short-term deals around $5 million a year.

Madvora
04-01-2006, 12:37 PM
On a randomness scale with a range of 1 to 245.6 with 245.6 being the most random I give this post a 194.324913 Oh irony!

MadetoOrta
04-01-2006, 12:41 PM
Gotta like this signing. The trade value of any starter (and McCarthy) is now solid as no player is the dreaded "one year rental."

I see no reason to make a trade right now, but you can bet come May or June there will be lots of GMs knocking down Kenny's door.

Right on. With the contract status locked up, the Sox can command the world knowing they have McCarthy ready to slide in. Wow. Great news.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 12:43 PM
So who's gone if BrMac shines?

Buehrle? NO way. So long as he's one of the top LHers in the AL he will be a member of the White Sox. Price is not an issue. He's God's gift to the White Sox. Everything changed with Mark.

Garcia? He'll be tempted but Ozzie is a MLB God now. It's like a mob-connection. I don't see him leaving. Like Buehrle his pitching motion & everything else leads to good health.

Contreras? He's the power arm of the staff & he's now signed at a great price. The price is so great that there isn't a team in the ML's that wouldn't look to trade for him.

Vazquez? He's the strike out artist of the staff. No matter how many HR's he gives up he's a good bet to lead the White Sox in K's. With Pedro gone he'll likely lead the AL in K's. Add to the fact that he is now 4 yrs removed from FA (because he exercised his right to demand a trade for AZ) he's going no where. For what he's costing the White Sox he's the lowest priced starter in the rotation.

That leaves Garland. Some still think 2005 was a fluke but that can't get around his post season performance. But Garland's age is what makes him the most likely to be traded. If Garland produces 15 wins this year think of what teams would give up to get him. You're talking great talents like the next Albert Pujols.

Put another way who is the guy that BrMac could replace & the White Sox wouldn't skip much of a beat? Garland.

Scottiehaswheels
04-01-2006, 12:46 PM
According to the Cubune... No trade clause included for the first year of the deal too...

Ol' No. 2
04-01-2006, 12:47 PM
So who's gone if BrMac shines?

Buehrle? NO way. So long as he's one of the top LHers in the AL he will be a member of the White Sox. Price is not an issue. He's God's gift to the White Sox. Everything changed with Mark.

Garcia? He'll be tempted but Ozzie is a MLB God now. It's like a mob-connection. I don't see him leaving. Like Buehrle his pitching motion & everything else leads to good health.

Contreras? He's the power arm of the staff & he's now signed at a great price. The price is so great that there isn't a team in the ML's that wouldn't look to trade for him.

Vazquez? He's the strike out artist of the staff. No matter how many HR's he gives up he's a good bet to lead the White Sox in K's. With Pedro gone he'll likely lead the AL in K's. Add to the fact that he is now 4 yrs removed from FA (because he exercised his right to demand a trade for AZ) he's going no where. For what he's costing the White Sox he's the lowest priced starter in the rotation.

That leaves Garland. Some still think 2005 was a fluke but that can't get around his post season performance. But Garland's age is what makes him the most likely to be traded. If Garland produces 15 wins this year think of what teams would give up to get him. You're talking great talents like the next Albert Pujols.

Put another way who is the guy that BrMac could replace & the White Sox wouldn't skip much of a beat? Garland.And you've decided this before anyone has thrown a single meaningful pitch. Wouldn't it be better to wait and see how they actually perform?

DumpJerry
04-01-2006, 12:48 PM
Hey guys, gotta run....need to hold my spot for October's parade!:D:

itsnotrequired
04-01-2006, 12:50 PM
And you've decided this before anyone has thrown a single meaningful pitch. Wouldn't it be better to wait and see how they actually perform?

No! Trade Garland right now! Any delay could cost the Sox the season!

If the Starting 5 and McCarthy can pitch like they are capable of, Keeny can pretty much name his price come the trade deadline if he needs to fill a hole.

TheVulture
04-01-2006, 12:51 PM
But Garland's age is what makes him the most likely to be traded.

Garland's age is exactly the reason NOT to trade him. If I had to guess, I'd go with Garcia getting traded next off-season.

DickAllen72
04-01-2006, 12:53 PM
I'm NOT advocating this, but just for the sake of discussion, what do you think the Sox would be able to get for Mark Buehrle next offseason if he has another of his typical good seasons in '06?

chaerulez
04-01-2006, 12:54 PM
Garland's age is exactly the reason NOT to trade him. If I had to guess, I'd go with Garcia getting traded next off-season.

I agree that Garland isn't going anywhere, but I think it'd be Vazquez that leaves the Sox before Garcia.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 12:54 PM
Let's just say Garland has been the subject of trade rumors more than any other player in the current rotation. In fact Kenny nearly had a done deal to trade him to AZ as part of a 3-way to get Vazquez a year earlier.

Dolanski
04-01-2006, 12:55 PM
So who's gone if BrMac shines?

Garcia? He'll be tempted but Ozzie is a MLB God now. It's like a mob-connection. I don't see him leaving. Like Buehrle his pitching motion & everything else leads to good health.



That leaves Garland. Some still think 2005 was a fluke but that can't get around his post season performance. But Garland's age is what makes him the most likely to be traded. If Garland produces 15 wins this year think of what teams would give up to get him. You're talking great talents like the next Albert Pujols.

Put another way who is the guy that BrMac could replace & the White Sox wouldn't skip much of a beat? Garland.

Let see, Garland is entering his prime and coming into his own, signed for 3 more years...yeah, no way they trade him. Sorry. The only way you tradea 27 year old Garland is if he reverts back to Judy for the entire season. Kenny even made comments upon signing him to an extension that they would regret letting him walk if he became an ace somewhere else.

Let's see. Who's contract is up in 2007, has started to lose something on his stuff, and will be entering his decline years? His name is Freddy and in the immortal words of Hawk, He Gone!

Yeah, he is Ozzie's nephew and workhorse, but he has started to lose something off his breaking balls, and is getting older. Don't get me wrong, he is still a good pitcher, but he has lost something. Two years ago, he was Seattle's ace. Is he ace material now? More like a solid 2 or 3 starter.

For that matter, you argue that keeping him is based on his ties to Ozzie, not necessarily on his age or talent. If anything the Kenny has shown its that this is a business and sometimes sentimentality has to take a back seat to what is best for the team and organization.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 01:06 PM
You are way off on Garcia but I'm not surprised. Ever since that trade went down Garcia has been downplayed on this site. Even after 2005 some of you still don't respect his talent.

This whole declining argument is really old. You have to look at the "type" of pitcher a guy is before you go there. Mark & Freddy are finesse pitchers. They won't overpower anybody. They induce outs, not K's. These types of pitchers have proven to be the most durable & decline very little in the early 30's.

Garland is primarily a sinker ball pitcher. That's a type of a pitch that puts greater strain on the arm. Even at his younger age Garland is more likely to suffer an injury than either Mark & Garcia during their current contracts.

The only way Vazquez or Contra get traded before Garland is health. They are both power pitchers who induce K's. But these types of pitchers are 2nd only to the flame-throwers in time on the DL.

California Sox
04-01-2006, 01:11 PM
This is great news. Everything has worked out the way KW hoped when he acquired Javier Vazquez. Now we can send him back to Arizona for Chris Young.

Seriously, though, the one guy I would not trade is McCarthy. He's the only one not making 10 mil and he has as much upside as any of them. I'm sure Kenny's phone will be ringing.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 01:13 PM
I agree that Garland isn't going anywhere, but I think it'd be Vazquez that leaves the Sox before Garcia.
I'm not saying Garland is going anywhere either. Whether BrMac is happy or not he's 5 yrs removed from FA. If Cotts & Politte produce stellar years in the pen again they are going to command large contracts. Even with our new found success & revenue I don't see the White Sox entering the foray of teams paying out $5-6 mil for mid-relief & setup men.

They can keep all 5 & use BrMac & their best arms in the minors to replenish the pen. With Contra signed they are now in the position to produce one of the best bullpens in the majors at one of the lowest costs.

samram
04-01-2006, 01:15 PM
So, do the Sox now have the highest-paid rotation outside of the Bronx? Never thought I'd see the day.:smile:

Evman5
04-01-2006, 01:16 PM
3 years 27 million! Are You kidding me? KW does it again baby! Just Set us up for to repeat through '08 baby! It's gonna be awesome baby!


just felt like throwing in a little dickie V in honor of march madness tonite!

TaylorStSox
04-01-2006, 01:18 PM
You are way off on Garcia but I'm not surprised. Ever since that trade went down Garcia has been downplayed on this site. Even after 2005 some of you still don't respect his talent.

This whole declining argument is really old. You have to look at the "type" of pitcher a guy is before you go there. Mark & Freddy are finesse pitchers. They won't overpower anybody. They induce outs, not K's. These types of pitchers have proven to be the most durable & decline very little in the early 30's.

Garland is primarily a sinker ball pitcher. That's a type of a pitch that puts greater strain on the arm. Even at his younger age Garland is more likely to suffer an injury than either Mark & Garcia during their current contracts.

The only way Vazquez or Contra get traded before Garland is health. They are both power pitchers who induce K's. But these types of pitchers are 2nd only to the flame-throwers in time on the DL.

Freddy Garcia's not a finesse pitcher.

Anyway, this is great. Guys are signing at discounted rates because they want to play for this team. The organization has really done a 180. Contreras is, and will continue to be our best pitcher IMO.

viagracat
04-01-2006, 01:22 PM
Every team needs pitching. Sox are really in a position to deal should one of the position players get hurt or something. I think McCarthy will get more work than you think, even with Contreras. I don't think there's such a thing as too much pitching but if there is, it's a nice problem to have.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 01:23 PM
It boggles the mind. It really does. After the White Sox win their 2nd World Series (b-2-b) what will the Yankees do? Will they be on the phone to get Crede & a starter from the White Sox for A-Rod & cash?

That's how pitching rich the White Sox look right now for both 2006 & 2007!

Kenny is going to replenish the bullpen. That's a given. He's done it every year. He's able to find diamond's in the rough for the pen. The experts think it's the Whte Sox achilles heel this year but I have faith in Kenny to address it quickly.

There's SO MUCH damn talent in this organization for Kenny to trade with. Did I die & go to heaven? Is this some kind of Matrix-reality. Nothing's better than sex, but that's like a bungee cord jump. It's a fleeting feeling. This is much more. This is like an eternal state of bliss. It's like being royalty ruling over the Earth.

I think it's even better for the fan because we don't have the pressure of performing. We can take that for granted.

The Cubs immediately were reduced to bugs on the sidewalk when we won it all. I love this feeling!

INSox56
04-01-2006, 01:24 PM
Two words....trade leverage. With a possible trade partner at the deadline, who would want to sign a pitcher that becomes a FA at the end of the season. This way, they could trade any one of our pitchers at the deadline with MUCH more leverage than they had with jose having only this year left on a contract. Now a team getting one of our pitchers gets years from the trade, not just this season. Amazing job, amazing. I HIGHLY doubt we're keeping them all to this many years with mccarthy sitting ready to go. We shall see...either way, I love this.

HotelWhiteSox
04-01-2006, 01:25 PM
Great deal, I love KW

Huisj
04-01-2006, 01:25 PM
Garland is primarily a sinker ball pitcher. That's a type of a pitch that puts greater strain on the arm. Even at his younger age Garland is more likely to suffer an injury than either Mark & Garcia during their current contracts.

The only way Vazquez or Contra get traded before Garland is health. They are both power pitchers who induce K's. But these types of pitchers are 2nd only to the flame-throwers in time on the DL.

So, you're saying that flame-throwers are on the DL the most, power pitchers are next in line for the DL, and sinker ball pitchers put greater strain on their arms? In other words, all these different types of pitcher might get hurt, so we should be scared of all of them? I'm not quite seeing what you're trying to say here.

Garland's sinker is a 2-seam fastball. He's not throwing splitters to get that sink. How does a 2-seamer put greater strain on a pitcher's arm?

CPditka
04-01-2006, 01:27 PM
The way I see it, the only problem with this is keeping Brandon happy. If any of the aces falter, I would pull them and put in Bmac. Rest the one that is hurting and transition him to the bullpen in a glorified el duque role or even better yet, a wicked closer (and yes Im thinking of Jose when talking about this) In a year or so he will be 97 (in Cuban years) and I dont know if his arm will be able to go 6-9 innings, you now the nastiest bullpen in the league. Just a thought.

Overall love the deal, price is definetly right. Just keep Bmac happy.

munchman33
04-01-2006, 01:30 PM
Couldn't they have waited until Wednesday to announce this?

INSox56
04-01-2006, 01:34 PM
Couldn't they have waited until Wednesday to announce this?

seriously...

California Sox
04-01-2006, 01:38 PM
This might mean KW is going to spend a bit less on position players. (I'm thinking Dye/Sweeney, Crede/Fields here.)

Ol' No. 2
04-01-2006, 01:44 PM
The way I see it, the only problem with this is keeping Brandon happy. If any of the aces falter, I would pull them and put in Fingernails on a blackboard. Rest the one that is hurting and transition him to the bullpen in a glorified el duque role or even better yet, a wicked closer (and yes Im thinking of Jose when talking about this) In a year or so he will be 97 (in Cuban years) and I dont know if his arm will be able to go 6-9 innings, you now the nastiest bullpen in the league. Just a thought.

Overall love the deal, price is definetly right. Just keep Fingernails on a blackboard happy.Are McCarthy fans now referred to as FOFOB?:redneck

SABRSox
04-01-2006, 01:44 PM
I really like this move. I know a lot of people can't wait to see McCarthy in the rotation, but what's the point in rushing him if you've got guys there already that can do the job? He's going to be 23 this year, and that's still very young for a pitcher.

I think the Sox are going to approach him like they did Santana. Keep him in the bullpen as a reliever, let him work on a third pitch, and use him as the 6th starter. It gives the Sox a great insurance policy, and should a trade come up that Kenny couldn't refuse (David Wright for Jon Garland) you can pull the trigger without thinking twice.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 01:45 PM
So, you're saying that flame-throwers are on the DL the most, power pitchers are next in line for the DL, and sinker ball pitchers put greater strain on their arms? In other words, all these different types of pitcher might get hurt, so we should be scared of all of them? I'm not quite seeing what you're trying to say here.

Garland's sinker is a 2-seam fastball. He's not throwing splitters to get that sink. How does a 2-seamer put greater strain on a pitcher's arm?
No. You have to balance risk vs promise. It's a well known fact that to win a World Series year after year you must have a dominant power arm. Contra was that arm for us last year. Vazquez is different. He's not a dominant power arm like Pedro. He's just stealthy.

Because of the Kerry & Prior media infatuation Garland's sinking fastball was discussed at length. It's his bread & butter pitcher & Stone believes it adds greater strain on his elbow then say an average sinking fastball. He says Garland would be wise not to become dependant on it. It's fine to throw it about 10% of the time in a given start, but if he were to push that to say 20-30% he's entering a much higher risk area.

Vazquez features a sinking fastball as well. It's been written that part of his demise with the Yanks was over-reliance on that pitch in the 1st half of that year. His velocity was down in the 2nd half & he became hittable. It took him a while to get that back & in the process he worked more on his other pitches. He's got the best repertoire of pitches on the staff.

What convinced Kenny to get him was his renewed confidence. Vazquez lost that in the 2nd half of that Yankee year. He started doubting himself & stopped challenging hitters. But in 2005 he regained it. He challenged the hitters every game. Even in the face of giving up homeruns. That renewed confidence led to 23 starts of 6+ IP surrending 3 or fewer runs.

beckett21
04-01-2006, 01:50 PM
This is great news. You can never have too much pitching; anyone who sees this as a problem or a roadblock is :kukoo:

I don't know what else to say except: :moonwalk:

California Sox
04-01-2006, 01:58 PM
I think the Sox are going to approach him like they did Santana. Keep him in the bullpen as a reliever, let him work on a third pitch, and use him as the 6th starter.

Ah, McCarthy already has three very good major league pitches (fastball, curve, change). He was working on a cutter in spring but junked it after move to pen.

He has everything in his arsenal he needs, we just don't have a spot. Not a bad problem to have.

WS in 05
04-01-2006, 02:02 PM
whitesox.com has him listed as 12/06/71 is that his real bitrthdate or is he one of those that they're not to sure how old he is? or is really that age?

Lip Man 1
04-01-2006, 02:03 PM
What this does is give Kenny Williams complete flexibility when it come to a potential future deal. Every team in MLB would like a starting pitcher AND one that they can control through 2007.

Williams can now sit back and listen as the phone calls come in by the bunches (and they will) starting this June for example. If he needs to say shore up the bullpen, or get another position player due to injury, he can extract a king's ransom now that he has all six pitchers under control now and in the future.

That's the way the Indians dominated the division in the 90's by locking up most of their guys to long term deals and giving them the freedom to pick and choose who to keep and who to deal as they went along.

Remarkable and kudos to Williams.

Lip

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 02:11 PM
I realize this is a hard place (Baseball heaven) for White Sox fans to become comfortable with. But when you are pitching rich like the White Sox you no longer look at whether a guy can perform. You look at how he's performing.

If Buerhle get's out of whack he can right himself & adjust. He's done it 3 yrs now. He's platinum.

Garcia has proven the most consistent RH starter the White Sox have had since 2000. He's The Rock.

Contreras' achilles heel is control. As long as he's not walking people he might be the best power RHer in the AL right now.

Garland lives & dies on his ability to throw that sinking fastball for the strikes. In that respect he's like Foulke with his changeup. If he loses that he becomes very hittable.

Vazquez has it all. He's a rare talent featuring a mid 90's fastball, good-great curve, a solid slider, & arguably one of the best changeup's in the league.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1382666.html http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/vazquja01.php

If on a given day Vazquez loses the ability to throw any one pitch he's still got plenty of tricks in his bag to be effective. He's the least likely of the 4 to be traded. Trading Buerhle is not even open for discussion. He's one of the best LHer starters in the game for crying out loud! He was a source of envy on the other 29 teams before the White Sox won it all.

StepsInSC
04-01-2006, 02:12 PM
Let see, Garland is entering his prime and coming into his own, signed for 3 more years...yeah, no way they trade him. Sorry. The only way you tradea 27 year old Garland is if he reverts back to Judy for the entire season. Kenny even made comments upon signing him to an extension that they would regret letting him walk if he became an ace somewhere else.


So you're subscribing to a buy-high/sell-low theory?? Trading Garland only if he reverts back to his craptacular form is exactly that.

It can't hurt to have too many arms, but I don't think that if one must be traded they should wait until one of the six falls off and then trade him. Trade one while their value is highest, get a lot in return, and then you won't care if that traded pitcher continues to be good because you'll have gotten high market value in return.

Deebs14
04-01-2006, 02:18 PM
Awesome news...I'm really freaking pumped!

Atta boy KW! :bandance:

Dolanski
04-01-2006, 02:21 PM
So you're subscribing to a buy-high/sell-low theory?? Trading Garland only if he reverts back to his craptacular form is exactly that.

It can't hurt to have too many arms, but I don't think that if one must be traded they should wait until one of the six falls off and then trade him. Trade one while their value is highest, get a lot in return, and then you won't care if that traded pitcher continues to be good because you'll have gotten high market value in return.

My point was that Garland is young and entering his prime, and you don't trade away an all star player on the rise so he can fufill his potential on someone else's team. For the right kind of deal, sure anyone can be traded, but Garland is coming into his own now and should stay here.

Someone else mentioned that McCarthy is only 23 which I didn't realize. Trading one of the current starters is possible, but so is keeping McCarthy in the bullpen for another year a la Johan Santana (something also mentioned).

In any case, what this is beginning to sound like is a Kenny Williams kinda deal. It gives the team multiple options no matter what happens.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 02:32 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/buehrma01.php http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/garcifr02.php
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/vazquja01.php http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/garlajo01.php
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/contrjo01.php

Player, Breakout, Improve, Collapse, Attrition
Vazqz, 20%, 64%, 5%, 1%
Buehrle, 20%, 54%, 9%, 0%
Garcia, 10%, 51%, 7%, 1%
Contra, 23%, 55%, 15%, 4%
Garlnd, 6%, 41%, 18%, 1%

Risk vs Promise Vazquez tops the list & Garland's last.

Vazquez is owed about $24 mil thru 07, but the D-Backs are paying $2 mil a yr towards that. So he's essentially another $10 mil/yr starter for the White Sox. He will be a RFA for 08 which means he's worth at least 2 picks if the White Sox do nothing more than offer him arbitration in 08.

So the White Sox have essentially Garland, Contra, & Vaz signed thru 2008. With World Series listed on their resumes it's unlikely Buerhle or Garcia will re-sign for less than $13 mil a yr, but I think the White Sox can afford a $60 mil rotation if they keep winning.

chisoxfanatic
04-01-2006, 02:43 PM
Wow! And not done on a Wednesday! Kenny Williams will be the Executive of the Year if he continues what he's been doing. For the past couple of years, he's turned everything into gold. Just 18 months have turned this organization from one that didn't have very much to be happy about to one of the elites. This has to be the best time in the history of this organization to be a Sox fan.

Excess pitching is the greatest "problem" to have yourself. I don't necessarily think that this will lessen his committment towards spending money on position players, however. Kenny and JR have been opening the checkbook much more. This organization has the possibility of extended greatness.

Kenny Williams should teach Pulford/Tallon and Jerry Angelo some lessons.

TaylorStSox
04-01-2006, 02:55 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/buehrma01.php http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/garcifr02.php
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/vazquja01.php http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/garlajo01.php
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/contrjo01.php

Player, Breakout, Improve, Collapse, Attrition
Vazqz, 20%, 64%, 5%, 1%
Buehrle, 20%, 54%, 9%, 0%
Garcia, 10%, 51%, 7%, 1%
Contra, 23%, 55%, 15%, 4%
Garlnd, 6%, 41%, 18%, 1%

Risk vs Promise Vazquez tops the list & Garland's last.

Vazquez is owed about $24 mil thru 07, but the D-Backs are paying $2 mil a yr towards that. So he's essentially another $10 mil/yr starter for the White Sox. He will be a RFA for 08 which means he's worth at least 2 picks if the White Sox do nothing more than offer him arbitration in 08.

So the White Sox have essentially Garland, Contra, & Vaz signed thru 2008. With World Series listed on their resumes it's unlikely Buerhle or Garcia will re-sign for less than $13 mil a yr, but I think the White Sox can afford a $60 mil rotation if they keep winning.

Using Baseball Prospectus as a source isn't going to help your cause around these parts.

KRS1
04-01-2006, 03:02 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/buehrma01.php http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/garcifr02.php
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/vazquja01.php http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/garlajo01.php
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/contrjo01.php

Player, Breakout, Improve, Collapse, Attrition
Vazqz, 20%, 64%, 5%, 1%
Buehrle, 20%, 54%, 9%, 0%
Garcia, 10%, 51%, 7%, 1%
Contra, 23%, 55%, 15%, 4%
Garlnd, 6%, 41%, 18%, 1%

Risk vs Promise Vazquez tops the list & Garland's last.

Vazquez is owed about $24 mil thru 07, but the D-Backs are paying $2 mil a yr towards that. So he's essentially another $10 mil/yr starter for the White Sox. He will be a RFA for 08 which means he's worth at least 2 picks if the White Sox do nothing more than offer him arbitration in 08.

So the White Sox have essentially Garland, Contra, & Vaz signed thru 2008. With World Series listed on their resumes it's unlikely Buerhle or Garcia will re-sign for less than $13 mil a yr, but I think the White Sox can afford a $60 mil rotation if they keep winning.


Please someone tell me why BP gets so much recognition for doing absolutely nothing. Show me something they have predicted right over the last few seasons and I'll show you something everyone else in the world of baseball already knew. "Carrie Wood has a 90% probability of being on the DL at some point this year." WOW! NO WAY! YOU PREDICTED THAT! Man you guys are certainly the smartest baseball source out there.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-01-2006, 03:28 PM
And you've decided this before anyone has thrown a single meaningful pitch. Wouldn't it be better to wait and see how they actually perform?
I couldn't agree more. We've got a lot of premature ejaculators on this board. We're not even sure the starting five have healthy arms to get us through the first month of a six month campaign! But let's whine about McCarthy's fate?
:o:

I noticed Mark Buehrle as a rookie pitched from the bullpen for the '00 Sox and it didn't seem to prevent him from blossoming into a #1 starter.

Sheesh... some people just can't pop their rocks quick enough. McCarthy will get his chance. Book it.

gobears1987
04-01-2006, 04:18 PM
It means someone will be traded at some point.Vazquez. He gives up too many homers. He won't be a good fit for USCF. Besides, I think BMac is the future.

Half Cocked Jack
04-01-2006, 04:26 PM
Will they be on the phone to get Crede & a starter from the White Sox for A-Rod & cash?
Ummm.... no.

ilsox7
04-01-2006, 04:29 PM
Vazquez. He gives up too many homers. He won't be a good fit for USCF. Besides, I think Fingernails on a blackboard is the future.
Why don't we give Javier the benefit of, say, a dozen or so starts before we deem him not a good fit for Sox Park. Let's see what Coop can do with him. Remember last year when Contreras was an awful fit for a MLB team? Javier, by most accounts, has "stuff" on a similar level to JC.

jabrch
04-01-2006, 04:49 PM
It's nice to have options...

We can bring McCarthy along at whatever pace we'd like. If someone wants one of our starters, we can hold off to get top $ for them. We can acquire a high end prospect, or a big bat. If the O's wanted to move Tejada, if the Angels wanted to trade Brandon Wood, if the D-Backs wanted to trade one of their young SS... who knows?

But in my 35 years, I don't recall seening a team with 5 all-star calibre pitchers in the rotation, as well as a ROY SP candidate in the pen. Even the Yanks, with their 150mm payrolls recently, didn't have a rotation like this in terms of depth.

Jjav829
04-01-2006, 04:55 PM
Ehh, excuse me for not jumping for joy. I'm not thrilled with the idea of giving Contreras a 3-year extension for $29 million and a no-trade clause in the first year based on one half of a season. I would have liked to see him prove that he can continue to pitch like he did in the 2nd half of 2005 for the first half of 2006 and then discuss an extension.

Someone is going to be traded this season or in the offseason. I think a $50 million rotation is a bit much, especially when you have a cheap, young, talented pitcher like Bmac waiting who allows you to go cheap on your 5th starter and save that money for another area.

I'll reserve judgment on whether this is a good or bad move until I see how the whole 6 starters situation works itself out.

Scottiehaswheels
04-01-2006, 05:02 PM
With our pitching staff locked up now for 2 years, would whomever created the spreadsheet with players locked up for 2007 and beyond repost it please? I'm curious to see what our payroll looks like now for 2007 and beyond...

fuzzy_patters
04-01-2006, 05:14 PM
This is a good sign for the Sox. It means that this organization is one of the few in baseball that understands that pitching really does win championships. I think it is a great move, provided he is really 34 and not 44.

DSpivack
04-01-2006, 05:20 PM
Call me stupid, but from where does McCarthy's nickname "Fingernails on a Blackboard" come?

santo=dorf
04-01-2006, 05:24 PM
Call me stupid, but from where does McCarthy's nickname "Fingernails on a Blackboard" come?
Batters are too scared to face him and they would rather be locked into a room and be forced to listen to someone drag their fingernails on a blackboard.

:o:

Bucky F. Dent
04-01-2006, 05:30 PM
This is the same sorta thing that I said at the beginning of last season before I was proved wrong. So, in an effort to be proven wrong again. (PLEASE PROVE ME WRONG, JOSE!) Ain't Jose a little old to be given a three year extension!?!

Hitmen77
04-01-2006, 05:48 PM
On White Sox Weekly this morning, KW said that if a deal wasn't done before tomorrow, it wasn't going to get done. The Sox were going to table all negotiation until November.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 05:48 PM
http://fantasynews.sandbox.com/2005/news/content/playerpages/player_main.asp?sport=MLB&id=2528
It's obvious no amount of analysis is going to convince you that Vazquez is a better pitcher than Garland. So perhaps this link will help explain just how high Cooper, Ozzie, & Kenny are on Vazquez.

Simply put the White Sox are paying $20 mil + Vizcaino, El Duque, & Young for Vazquez. That's a high price to pay for one guy that some of you feel is expendable. It likewise ignores the fact that Kenny originally pitched Garland & Young for Vazquez.

So it's highly unlikely Vazquez will be traded before Garland or Contra in the event Kenny feels he must trade a starter.

A. Cavatica
04-01-2006, 05:51 PM
Call me stupid, but from where does McCarthy's nickname "Fingernails on a Blackboard" come?

From taking his first initial and the first syllable of his last name and trying to use that as a nickname.

TDog
04-01-2006, 05:59 PM
I haven't read the last several pages yet, but I don't believe the signing implies there will be a trade. In some ways, this is "old school" thinking in a free agency world.

Before there was the free agency, there was the reserve clause that bound a player to a team, virtually for life. I knew a school principal in Arizona who had a minor league career pitching in the Cards organization. He left to go back to college, settle down etc. Several years later he got a letter from the Cardinals telling him he was no longer bound to them for baseball services. What the best teams did was lock up good pitching by scouting and signing good arms to what Marvin Miller called plantation-style contracts. It wasn't really fair to the players, but that's why the best teams stayed the best teams year in and year out. The Dodgers used to have excellent pitchers in the minors who couldn't crack the roster. If one of your starters went down, you could go to the bullpen -- where the pitcher were either past their prime or waiting to get a chance, as opposed to people current "specialists" who aren't good enough to start -- and find another starter.

I understand people want to see Brandon McCarthy start. I want to see the White Sox win an obscenely high number of games.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 06:00 PM
Seriously now, how many teams in MLB are featuring a 5th starter who had 20 quality starts last year? That was 2nd on the D-Back's behind 22 by their future ace Webb. BOB is no pitcher's paradise either. It's pretty hard to pitch 20 quality starts in a hitter's ball park with a lackluster offense & one of the worst defensive teams in the majors.

Yet despite this & battling against other #1-#2's for most of the year he produced 14 wins.

So what's he likely to produce for the White Sox battling against other #4-#5's? 20 wins? He doesn't have to produce a < 4.00 era. He just needs to outpitch the competition.

Brian26
04-01-2006, 06:08 PM
I'll reserve judgment on whether this is a good or bad move until I see how the whole 6 starters situation works itself out.

Just a bizarre, whacky prediction on my part, and I have nothing to back this up with other than a hunch, but I have a feeling one of the five starters (not including McCarthy) will be closing games before the All-Star break. Contreras and Garcia were #1 and 2 in wild pitches in the AL last year. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense on a lot of different levels, but I have a hunch McCarthy becomes the #5 starter and Contreras or Freddie goes to to the pen as the closer.

Daver
04-01-2006, 06:16 PM
Just a bizarre, whacky prediction on my part, and I have nothing to back this up with other than a hunch, but I have a feeling one of the five starters (not including McCarthy) will be closing games before the All-Star break. Contreras and Garcia were #1 and 2 in wild pitches in the AL last year. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense on a lot of different levels, but I have a hunch McCarthy becomes the #5 starter and Contreras or Freddie goes to to the pen as the closer.

I think the official scorer did AJ a favor, a good number of those wild pitches could have been scored as passed balls.

TheOldRoman
04-01-2006, 06:34 PM
It likewise ignores the fact that Kenny originally pitched Garland & Young for Vazquez.
I have never heard that from anyone else. What is your source?
KW reportedly tried to trade Garland and/or Konerko to Arizona for Randy Johnson before last season, but I have never heard that the Sox offered Garland for Vazquez, let alone Garland and Young. That deal would have been ridiculous, an absolute steal for Arizona, considering Garland's age and price tag before his extension.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 06:38 PM
That's an awfully expensive closer option. The biggest concern right now is Jenks. He's loss 5 mph on his fastball which makes it very hittable. With just a better than avg fastball he's got to throw his curve for strikes a lot more. That's asking a lot in terms of control from a guy without much history to look at.

If Jenks doesn't get his velocity back he'll fill a Marte role. Expected to be effective but scary. That removes him from the closer role. The White Sox will either groom a new closer from their existing pen or trade for an established one.

It's not a big deal right now because the White Sox don't just have 5 #1-2's filling their rotation. Those 5 guys have little history of being on the shelf long. Contra is probably the most fragile of the 5.

If the front 5 are able to go 100-110 pitchers per game & 6+ IP then they'll use closer by comittee. But if the front 5 start falling below that mark they'll have to make a move for an established closer.

Mark, Freddy, & Javier have the best track record for that mark. It's highly unlikely they won't do that in about 25 starts each. Jon & Jose are relative new-comers to that.

What the Jose signing means is that Kenny can now go out & get a bonified hot closer if he feels the need.

ilsox7
04-01-2006, 06:42 PM
That's an awfully expensive closer option. The biggest concern right now is Jenks. He's loss 5 mph on his fastball which makes it very hittable. With just a better than avg fastball he's got to throw his curve for strikes a lot more. That's asking a lot in terms of control from a guy without much history to look at.

If Jenks doesn't get his velocity back he'll fill a Marte role. Expected to be effective but scary. That removes him from the closer role. The White Sox will either groom a new closer from their existing pen or trade for an established one.

It's not a big deal right now because the White Sox don't just have 5 #1-2's filling their rotation. Those 5 guys have little history of being on the shelf long. Contra is probably the most fragile of the 5.

If the front 5 are able to go 100-110 pitchers per game & 6+ IP then they'll use closer by comittee. But if the front 5 start falling below that mark they'll have to make a move for an established closer.

Mark, Freddy, & Javier have the best track record for that mark. It's highly unlikely they won't do that in about 25 starts each. Jon & Jose are relative new-comers to that.

What the Jose signing means is that Kenny can now go out & get a bonified hot closer if he feels the need.

According to Ozzie, Jenks was at 97-98 in his last outting.

champagne030
04-01-2006, 06:49 PM
Call me stupid, but from where does McCarthy's nickname "Fingernails on a Blackboard" come?

Someone in authority here has decided that he/she didn't like that moniker, took 'their ball and went home' and decided that will not be his nickname, even though bemac himself registered and posted on this website with that handle..........

Daver
04-01-2006, 06:54 PM
That's an awfully expensive closer option. The biggest concern right now is Jenks. He's loss 5 mph on his fastball which makes it very hittable. With just a better than avg fastball he's got to throw his curve for strikes a lot more. That's asking a lot in terms of control from a guy without much history to look at.

If Jenks doesn't get his velocity back he'll fill a Marte role. Expected to be effective but scary. That removes him from the closer role. The White Sox will either groom a new closer from their existing pen or trade for an established one.

It's not a big deal right now because the White Sox don't just have 5 #1-2's filling their rotation. Those 5 guys have little history of being on the shelf long. Contra is probably the most fragile of the 5.

If the front 5 are able to go 100-110 pitchers per game & 6+ IP then they'll use closer by comittee. But if the front 5 start falling below that mark they'll have to make a move for an established closer.

Mark, Freddy, & Javier have the best track record for that mark. It's highly unlikely they won't do that in about 25 starts each. Jon & Jose are relative new-comers to that.

What the Jose signing means is that Kenny can now go out & get a bonified hot closer if he feels the need.

Allright, just so I have this straight.

All your information to base your opinion on comes from either Baseball Prospectus, a collection of proppeller heads that wouldn't know what constitutes good pitching mechanics it if fell on them like a ton of bricks, and some fantasy baseball site that does little more than track numbers as they pertain to fantasy baseball, not the game as it is played on the feild.

Then you back this up by rating a closer (the most over rated bullpen job in all of baseball, a job that exists merely because someone decided to make a stat on it) simply on what the gun readings on his pitches are, and we are expected to take you even remotely seriously?

NardiWasHere
04-01-2006, 06:55 PM
According to Ozzie, Jenks was at 97-98 in his last outting.

Who cares? He had a bad March. What a lazy, out of shape bum. Too bad... I thought he had a good chance to make the team, too

TheOldRoman
04-01-2006, 07:02 PM
Allright, just so I have this straight.

All your information to base your opinion on comes from either Baseball Prospectus, a collection of proppeller heads that wouldn't know what constitutes good pitching mechanics it if fell on them like a ton of bricks, and some fantasy baseball site that does little more than track numbers as they pertain to fantasy baseball, not the game as it is played on the feild.

Then you back this up by rating a closer (the most over rated bullpen job in all of baseball, a job that exists merely because someone decided to make a stat on it) simply on what the gun readings on his pitches are, and we are expected to take you even remotely seriously?
*starts slow clap*

Not only that, but he is a FOBB, too.

Soxfest
04-01-2006, 07:12 PM
Great move and more chips to get something whenever!

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 07:20 PM
I included the reference in the post. There are several others because there were several contenders vying for Vazquez including our new rival the A's.

It's not surprising at all.

In 256 starts Vazquez has left the game with his team either winning or tied 163 times. In comparison Garland in 159 starts has left the game with his team either winning or tied 98 times. Vazquez is just 3 yrs older than Garland.

In years past & some of 2005 the White Sox have gone makeshift with those 5th starter games. Those games more or less consumed the bullpen. Not any more. The WBC tune-up likely helped Vazquez eliminate his disasterous start a year ago.

The most important element in winning a division is to keep losing streaks to a minimum. If you face a long losing streak, you've got to battle extra hard to get out of it & now that greenies are banned that's going to be doubly hard to do. Players are more likely to run out of energy sooner this year.

On Paper, Vazquez has proven to be his best when the White Sox have been their worst (May, Aug).

In 45 starts in May over his career Vazquez has left the game either winning or tied 30 times. That's nearly 21 outs per start. In his Aug starts he's produced nearly 19 outs per start over 46 starts.

Probably the most impressive month for Vazquez is Sept. The clinching month. In 38 Sept starts over his career Javier has a 3.74 ERA, 1.19 WHIP, & a .245BAA.

Ol' No. 2
04-01-2006, 07:22 PM
*starts slow clap*

Not only that, but he is a FOBB, too.Wait. I thought SLF was actually Kenny Williams posting here incognito. He seemed so knowledgable.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 07:30 PM
Not true at all. I gather information from all sources including my own eyes when watching the game.

If Jenks doesn't have the heater working he's very hittable. If Garland doesn't have his sinker working he's very hittable.

The closer is the most important spot in the bullpen because he will face more win or lose situations than any other relief pitcher on the team. Mentally it's the toughest position on the team because of the pressure of losing.

It's got nothing to do with stats or anything else. Just simple common sense. Closer by committee has never worked over the course of a full season because of the mental part of the game. A closer has to develop a higher level of confidence & willingness to challenge hitters. Much more so than the average relief pitcher.

Believe what you want but something's are obvious just by watching the game & following your team. You don't need a stat sheet to see it.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 07:50 PM
Wait. I thought SLF was actually Kenny Williams posting here incognito.

Again, believe what you want but Kenny's pretty much made every move I wanted him to make this year. I advocated Mak, Cintron, & Thome early on because I wanted to dump Marte, Everett, Timo, & Harris. It was clear the AL caught up to Marte & his mind was a mess. Best to save the money & go green for his spot. Everett's OBP was bad, Timo was worthless, & Harris was too inconsistent as a base stealer to be effective. I felt Thome was worth the risk at $8 mil.

When Vazquez announced his trade demand I said go get him Kenny. I even drew up the exact trade that went down though I built one around Garland as well. It was simple economics. We could get Vazquez at $20 mil /2 yrs plus an arbit year or Jon at $7 mil for 1 yr. It wasn't looking good that Garland would sign more than a 1 yr deal.

As for Frank I would have offered him a spot on the bench. Nothing more. I don't know if Kenny ever did that. If Frank wasn't healthy enough to start then a spot on the bench is perfect. It gives him time in the minors to work himself back & when it came time for him to join he's just taking a bench spot. Most likely Gload's. If Kenny didn't do that he should have. Ozzie had already proven capable of managing Frank.

Frank off the bench is ideal because then you have the LH bat Thome, & the RH bat Frank at the DH position. They were both coming off surgery so I didn't think it a terrible thing to split the 600 AB's between them 350-250.

But honestly, Frank off the bench is overkill for a team that is stacked. I don't think he would have made any difference in winning/losing the division. It would be more of an issue of how much we wanted to pummel opponents.

Chisox003
04-01-2006, 07:54 PM
Wait. I thought SLF was actually Kenny Williams posting here incognito. He seemed so knowledgable.
:rolling:

That's the first thing I though too.

santo=dorf
04-01-2006, 07:54 PM
Just a bizarre, whacky prediction on my part, and I have nothing to back this up with other than a hunch, but I have a feeling one of the five starters (not including McCarthy) will be closing games before the All-Star break. Contreras and Garcia were #1 and 2 in wild pitches in the AL last year. I know it doesn't make a lot of sense on a lot of different levels, but I have a hunch McCarthy becomes the #5 starter and Contreras or Freddie goes to to the pen as the closer.
No way on Freddy because as one poster mentioned last season, Guillen's leash on him is "as big as the one on Clifford the big red dog." He also has the tendency to start off shaky in the first inning of work, however, he pitches well when the pressure is on.

Contreras is a better possibility because if you recall, the Sox were going to trade Jeremy Reed in early June 2004 for him to become the closer.

Flight #24
04-01-2006, 08:00 PM
http://fantasynews.sandbox.com/2005/news/content/playerpages/player_main.asp?sport=MLB&id=2528
It's obvious no amount of analysis is going to convince you that Vazquez is a better pitcher than Garland. So perhaps this link will help explain just how high Cooper, Ozzie, & Kenny are on Vazquez.

Simply put the White Sox are paying $20 mil + Vizcaino, El Duque, & Young for Vazquez. That's a high price to pay for one guy that some of you feel is expendable. It likewise ignores the fact that Kenny originally pitched Garland & Young for Vazquez.


First off, that's for 2 years of Vazquez, which is at or below market rate for a guy like him. The trade demand would make you think he should be discounted at least slightly, but your calculation also ignores the salary of Duque, which was $5M. At $7.5M/yr, Vazquez is a steal. That's Paul Byrd money for a guy who's far superior.

I'm not saying that KW isn't high on him, but he didn't exactly give up the whole house for him. And the Garland+Young thing is pretty unlikely, IMO - I'd need to see some proof of that (or at least a mention by a reputable source) before even giving that the slightest bit of thought.

Daver
04-01-2006, 08:03 PM
And the Garland+Young thing is pretty unlikely, IMO - I'd need to see some proof of that (or at least a mention by a reputable source) before even giving that the slightest bit of thought.

He hasn't linked a reputable source for anything yet.

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 08:56 PM
He hasn't linked a reputable source for anything yet.
The Sandbox is affiliated with Rotoworld & AllStar Stats. I've posted a link from cbssportsline.com as well. But something tells me anything short of Kenny saying it himself you'll find to be non-reputable.

http://fantasybaseball.usatoday.com/content/player_news.asp?sport=MLB&id=2528&line=165776

What exactly is a reputable source for rumors any ways? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=FOX+Sports+Garland+for+Vazquez&btnG=Search

Believe what you want. They'll trade Jon before they trade Javier.

Lip Man 1
04-01-2006, 09:23 PM
I simply want to know how a previous poster decided that Brandon McCarthy registered at WSI and used the name "Fingernails On A Blackboard".

:?:

Lip

gosox3072
04-01-2006, 09:35 PM
Burhrle has 1 postseason save. Maybe he will become the closer!

SOXintheBURGH
04-01-2006, 09:50 PM
Kenny Williams walks on water.

TheOldRoman
04-01-2006, 09:54 PM
I simply want to know how a previous poster decided that Brandon McCarthy registered at WSI and used the name "Fingernails On A Blackboard".

:?:

Lip No, he was saying that McCarthy registered under "B Mac" or B Mac followed by some numbers. He has posted here before.

santo=dorf
04-01-2006, 09:55 PM
I simply want to know how a previous poster decided that Brandon McCarthy registered at WSI and used the name "Fingernails On A Blackboard".

:?:

Lip
Lip, his user name here and at Soxtalk is B.MAC3520 (minus the .) He always wore either 20 or 35 (his favorite player is Frank,) and because he knows Frank's number will be retired eventually, he added the two together for his number this season.

West hates the nickname for Brandon, so he placed a hack that changes those four letters in to "Fingernails on a Blackboard." If you look under the letter "B" in the members list, you'll see a name starting with f. Remember when he got tired of your acronym for the "Friends of Uncle Jerry?"

****

Fingernails on a blackboard3520 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=2637) http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
New At WSI

Lip Man 1
04-01-2006, 09:56 PM
Interesting. I wonder if any one has any confirmed info of any other Sox players registering and using this site?

Lip

Flight #24
04-01-2006, 10:06 PM
The Sandbox is affiliated with Rotoworld & AllStar Stats. I've posted a link from cbssportsline.com as well. But something tells me anything short of Kenny saying it himself you'll find to be non-reputable.

http://fantasybaseball.usatoday.com/content/player_news.asp?sport=MLB&id=2528&line=165776

What exactly is a reputable source for rumors any ways? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=FOX+Sports+Garland+for+Vazquez&btnG=Search

Believe what you want. They'll trade Jon before they trade Javier.

Have another: :gulp:

OK, those links say Garland & Young's names were brought up in trade discussions. Which is a far cry from KW offering Garland and Young together. In fact, you can piece together what the most likely scenario is from the report immediately preceding and following the one you're focused on.
A summary:
12/13 4:41AM: Sox are offering Garland or Contreras for Vazquez
12/13 1:12PM: Garland & Young are in the discussions
12/14 12:40AM: Sox are close to acquiring Vazquez for Duque+Young+another pitcher

That tells you what was almost certainly meant by the line you focused on. A deal structured on Garland OR Young, not Garland AND Young.

thomas35forever
04-01-2006, 10:10 PM
20th Century: Yankees
21st Century: White Sox??!!

SoLongFrank
04-01-2006, 10:52 PM
Garland OR Young vs Garland AND Young. I'm not sure you can conclude that. We eventually gave up Vizcaino, El Duque, & Young & both Garland & Konerko were mentioned before Konerko's signing. So I don't think we can rule out Garland & Young as a possibility at the time.

I do believe though if that had been the case we would have gotten more than just Vazquez & cash in the deal.

In any case we're just debating whether Young would have been included in a Garland deal. Not whether Garland would have been used to secure Vazquez.

The biggest difference between Jon & Javier is about 100 starts which makes sense since they are 3 yrs apart. Vazquez has lost about 37% of his starts & Garland 39% of his. In contrast Contreras is the best on the White Sox having lost just 25% of his starts to date.

Wins & no-decisions are discretionary because a guy can pitch poorly & yet his team can bail him out with run support. A loss nearly always means the opposing starter outpitched him. I'll take a rotation with the fewest losses over a rotation with the most wins any year.

Daver
04-01-2006, 11:21 PM
Wins & no-decisions are discretionary because a guy can pitch poorly & yet his team can bail him out with run support. A loss nearly always means the opposing starter outpitched him. I'll take a rotation with the fewest losses over a rotation with the fewest wins any year.

This alone tells me you have no idea what you are talking about, this is not fantasy baseball. Stats alone do not give the information needed to evaluate any player, and any one that does so is a fool, ask Billy Beane.

Brian26
04-01-2006, 11:35 PM
I'll take a rotation with the fewest losses over a rotation with the fewest wins any year.

I'll take a rotation with the lowest ERA.

TheOldRoman
04-02-2006, 12:28 AM
Garland OR Young vs Garland AND Young. I'm not sure you can conclude that. We eventually gave up Vizcaino, El Duque, & Young & both Garland & Konerko were mentioned before Konerko's signing. So I don't think we can rule out Garland & Young as a possibility at the time OK, once again, nowhere did it say the Sox were offering Garland. It said in that article that the D-Backs WANTED Garland. Big difference. Also, you misread my earlier post. The Sox offered Garland and/or Konerko before the 2005 season for RANDY JOHNSON. Konerko could not have been discussed in the Vazquez trade because he was a free agent. Konerko was not mentioned in the possible trade, and neither was Garland, at least by the Sox. You are the only who ever claimed the Sox were ready to take Vazquez over Garland.

russ99
04-02-2006, 12:38 AM
As I recall, didn't Garland get a 1-year no trade clause in his deal too?

If any starter is traded, it would probably be Vazquez, but the Sox need to find out what they got in him first. If he does get dealt it would be at the deadline.

McCarthy will get some starts this season - there's sure to be an injury or two and he can be used to give some rest to a few guys here or there during the dead-arm period in August.

Jenks just needs to get in some real game situations instead of boring meaningless spring games, and he'll be fine. His velocity is noticably picking up.

I'm a lot more more worried about our unproven 5th thru 7th inning guys up to Politte.

SOX ADDICT '73
04-02-2006, 01:08 AM
I'm a lot more more worried about our unproven 5th thru 7th inning guys up to Politte.
I believe their names are Buehrle, Garcia, Contreras, Garland, and Vazquez, and I think they'll do just fine...:wink:

SoLongFrank
04-02-2006, 01:25 AM
I wasn't referring to your post in reference to Garland & Konerko involved in trade talks. I was referring to the links I posted.

It goes without saying stats alone can not predict a team's fortunes. You always have intangibles like a pitching coach like Cooper that can turn washouts into Cy Young candidates. But those are not the norm. They're rare exceptions. Most teams have Rothchilds that can't coach their way out of a paper bag.

Cooper is likely to prove this again with Thorton.

Ol' No. 2
04-02-2006, 01:29 AM
Have another: :gulp:

OK, those links say Garland & Young's names were brought up in trade discussions. Which is a far cry from KW offering Garland and Young together. In fact, you can piece together what the most likely scenario is from the report immediately preceding and following the one you're focused on.
A summary:
12/13 4:41AM: Sox are offering Garland or Contreras for Vazquez
12/13 1:12PM: Garland & Young are in the discussions
12/14 12:40AM: Sox are close to acquiring Vazquez for Duque+Young+another pitcher

That tells you what was almost certainly meant by the line you focused on. A deal structured on Garland OR Young, not Garland AND Young.It was on mlbtraderumors.com, too. It must be true.:rolleyes:

SoLongFrank
04-02-2006, 01:32 AM
I'll take a rotation with the lowest ERA.
ERA is so overrated. The 4 most important pitching statistics are K/9, K/BB, WHIP, & OOPS. Those are much better to use in evaluating a pitcher than ERA or W-L. But that's a lot of work & it still suffers from the same problem that any seasonal avg's do: they exeragerate the effect of high's & low's.

If I had to pick just one stat it would be losses/starts for starter & losses/appearances for a reliever. The bottom number is as important as the top & the resulting % because it gives you a measure of durability & consistency. You can't stay in the big leagues if you are neither durable or consistent.

It was on mlbtraderumors.com, too. It must be true.:rolleyes: The only true trade rumor is one that matches a trade. Rumors are a question of plausibility not truth.

Realist
04-02-2006, 06:09 AM
Interesting. I wonder if any one has any confirmed info of any other Sox players registering and using this site?

Lip
I've been told that employees of the White Sox are encouraged to read WSI but aren't allowed to post here. I dunno if that goes for the players too.

As for the Contreras signing - great. Now I wish the Sox would lock up Coop for the next 10 years.

Tragg
04-02-2006, 09:52 AM
I think we're going to need all of these pitchers this year.
Trading a quality pitcher (McCarthy) at the trade deadline to "plug a hole" would be stupid - thank goodness we resisted that last deadline (trading our top young players for the elite AJ Burnett, e.g. - and in that case, SP wasn't a hole anyway) - trade a guy who's about to become a FA to plug a hole, if we must.
Trade McCarthy or somone after this season to improve the team and to keep us contenders for the next 5 years. For example, we'll be looking for a new lead-off hitter in the next year or two, I would guess.

RowanDye
04-02-2006, 11:01 AM
Kenny is covering all the bases here, but I still cringed a little on hearing this come out of his mouth about resigning Buehrle next year:

"We've kidded around about it,'' Williams responded, when asked if talks with Buehrle had started. "I told him that once we get to his free-agent year I was just going to put a St. Louis Cardinals uniform in his locker and that would be the end of it. For the last five years, he's been talking about it. I don't know if we've got too much of a real shot, and that's OK.''

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-cowley02.html


Even if he was just "kidding around", I don't really see the point of him saying something like this in public right now?!

jabrch
04-02-2006, 11:03 AM
ERA is so overrated.

That's ridiculous.

The 4 most important pitching statistics are K/9, K/BB, WHIP, & OOPS.

Not a single one of those actually measures runs scored. K/9? You must be a big Kerry Wood fan. I don't care what people hit against you, I don't care how many strikeouts you have, or walks you have. Tell me, over the course of 30+ starts how many runs you allow per start.


If I had to pick just one stat it would be losses/starts for starter & losses/appearances for a reliever.

Losses are as bad a single stat as wins are. Go back to your spreadsheet.


The bottom number is as important as the top & the resulting % because it gives you a measure of durability & consistency. You can't stay in the big leagues if you are neither durable or consistent.

Losses don't measure consistency. They measure losses.

jabrch
04-02-2006, 11:05 AM
I'll take a rotation with the fewest losses over a rotation with the most wins any year.

?

That's the silliest thing I have ever seen written on WSI...and you have lots of competition for that.

depy48
04-02-2006, 11:11 AM
I just hope that Garland doesnt get the "Bronson Arroyo" treatment, where he signed a hometown deal, only to find himself traded.

Vernam
04-02-2006, 11:46 AM
Fingernails on a blackboard3520 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/member.php?u=2637) http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif
New At WSIThanks for the link. I really enjoyed reading how someone called him "Cubbieboy" for speaking up in defense of Mark Prior. :D:

Vernam

TheOldRoman
04-02-2006, 12:06 PM
Kenny is covering all the bases here, but I still cringed a little on hearing this come out of his mouth about resigning Buehrle next year:

"We've kidded around about it,'' Williams responded, when asked if talks with Buehrle had started. "I told him that once we get to his free-agent year I was just going to put a St. Louis Cardinals uniform in his locker and that would be the end of it. For the last five years, he's been talking about it. I don't know if we've got too much of a real shot, and that's OK.''

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-cowley02.html


Even if he was just "kidding around", I don't really see the point of him saying something like this in public right now?!
That is horrible yellow journalism. The quote from KW is fine, but Buehrle "seemed worried"? How exactly did he seem worried? Was he visually upset? Did you ASK him anything Cowley? No, you are just throwing crap at the wall in an attempt to start a controversy. Next time Buehrle "seems a bit upset" and supposedly knows the Sox wont resign him, how about you get a ****ing quote? Thanks.

Ol' No. 2
04-02-2006, 12:16 PM
That is horrible yellow journalism. The quote from KW is fine, but Buehrle "seemed worried"? How exactly did he seem worried? Was he visually upset? Did you ASK him anything Cowley? No, you are just throwing crap at the wall in an attempt to start a controversy. Next time Buehrle "seems a bit upset" and supposedly knows the Sox wont resign him, how about you get a ****ing quote? Thanks.And it's exactly what we've come to expect from Tail-gunner Joe. What a poor excuse for a journalist.

SoLongFrank
04-02-2006, 12:31 PM
Believe what you want. Go to any site or read any book on the subject & it will tell you flat out that the K/9, K/BB, WHIP, OOPS are the 4 major measures for a pitcher today.

I'm by no means a Kerry Wood fan. I've pointed this out more than once. It's not the avg's alone that are important in those 4 measures. It's the input that determines them. Ex. K/9 alone means very little but when a pitcher is approaching 200 K's as a starter or 70 K's as a reliever it means a lot.

The same applies to loses/starts. If it's only 10 or 15 starts it doesn't mean a heck of a whole lot. But when it's for 30-35 starts it takes on significance.

If you doubt it go find an example. Find me a contending team since the debut of USCF that didn't feature a rotation with fewer loses than non-contenders. When you come to the realization you can't you'll understand the significance.

ERA is an overrated stat. You can read any book on pitching statistics & the line itself will pop up in the 1st chapter.

SoLongFrank
04-02-2006, 12:40 PM
And it's exactly what we've come to expect from Tail-gunner Joe. What a poor excuse for a journalist.

I just read it. If you simply change five to few it's old-news. Did Cowley do that? Probably. Would Kenny call him on it? Probably not. The White Sox need the media to be on their side if they are going to change the tide the lying, cheating Sosa brought in the mid 90's. We'd be top dogs for the last 5 years if he had never been a Cub.

Seriously there is no way I can see them parting with Buehrle. He's not just one of the best young LHers in the game but he's a great clubhouse asset. He keeps people lose & yet leads on the field like fewer others have. Imagine any young kid watching Buehrle battle on the mound in a season. Imagine what they take away from that.

Halladay re-up'd with the Jays. Cowley knows this. That's why he felt a need to rain on the White Sox most recent parade.

The Cubby blue kool-aid some of these dolts drink has them seething with envy.

RowanDye
04-02-2006, 12:54 PM
I just read it. If you simply change five to few it's old-news. Did Cowley do that? Probably. Would Kenny call him on it? Probably not. The White Sox need the media to be on their side if they are going to change the tide the lying, cheating Sosa brought in the mid 90's. We'd be top dogs for the last 5 years if he had never been a Cub.

Seriously there is no way I can see them parting with Buehrle. He's not just one of the best young LHers in the game but he's a great clubhouse asset. He keeps people lose & yet leads on the field like fewer others have. Imagine any young kid watching Buehrle battle on the mound in a season. Imagine what they take away from that.

Halladay re-up'd with the Jays. Cowley knows this. That's why he felt a need to rain on the White Sox most recent parade.

The Cubby blue kool-aid some of these dolts drink has them seething with envy.

So you think, at best, Cowley took this quote out of context and pasted together some "reactionary" story to Jose re-upping? I guess I shouldn't expect much from the Suntimes. If anyone know anything else about the context of Kenny's quote I would be very interested. As is, this seems like just the type of "defeatist attitude" that Kenny usually avoids. We're World Champs, why the hell wouldn't we have a shot at re-signing Buehrle?

soxfanreggie
04-02-2006, 01:06 PM
I think it's great that we re-signed Jose. However, I don't want to here about getting rid of MB. He's our ace, I want him locked up in a 4-5 year extension past 2007. In addition, I don't want to se us lose Cotts. We can't risk losing an excellent left handed pitching talent in the bullpen. I could see him winning another set-up man of the year award...maybe not this year but in the next few.

SoLongFrank
04-02-2006, 01:23 PM
I have to believe that the Yanks had an interest in Halladay. Yet he just inked a 4 yr extension to remain a Jay. Three years will not get your Mark. You will most probably have to go to five. But when you factor in his durability the past few years he's more than worth it.

Cowley also did another low blow in that story. He never got Mark's reaction. The joke or sarcasm if you will is rooted in the fact that had Mark been a Cardinal he would not have won a World Series. Cowley didn't write one word about that.

Colon signed a $51 mil/4 yr deal with the Angels in 2003. But I think it will come down to this. Is Mark any less important to the White Sox than Konerko? I believe Kenny will see it the same as I do. The answer is no. If he believes a team is out there willing to offer Mark a 5 yr deal he'll have to offer him the same as Konerko. Otherwise I see Mark being offered the same deal as Colon but with one exception: it will be a $48 mil/4 yr + $3 mil buyout on a 5th yr option.

Kenny's a sharp guy. He knows that Mark is stingy with the HR ball. In 236 ip he gave up just 20 HR (13 at USCF). To put that in perspective Johan Santana gave up 22 HR l(14 at the dome). You do not let a talent like this get away.

SoLongFrank
04-02-2006, 01:35 PM
In addition, I don't want to se us lose Cotts. We can't risk losing an excellent left handed pitching talent in the bullpen. I could see him winning another set-up man of the year award...maybe not this year but in the next few.

That's a much tougher decision. If Cotts has another dominant year there will be teams offering better than Howry $. I just don't see the White Sox offering relief pitchers $4-5 mil/yr for 3-4 yrs. They'll look to replenish the pen from within. The only exception might be if Cotts emerges as the closer. Kenny's shown in the past a wilingness to offer 2-3 yr deals to closers for near market prices.

If the White Sox win it again, I guess we can't rule out another $20 mil increase in payroll. That would be enough to keep every one & still have some left over for the deadline action.

But if they don't, I think they will keep the payroll in the $100 mil range. That Even if you go with Fields @ 3B, & Sweeney in RF, rises in salary for the rest will put the team over the $100 mil mark.

It's amazing that we're even having this conversation. But some of us felt we would if they won the World Series. :gulp:

SOecks
04-02-2006, 01:52 PM
Another great move by KW. I absolutely LOVE the fact that they've said for years that if the fans come, they will invest in the team and they are yet again keeping that promise. With season tickets at an all time high, and the naming deal with the stadium, we now have a much better team and a much better ballpark. Life is good.

caulfield12
04-02-2006, 02:01 PM
Simply put the White Sox are paying $20 mil + Vizcaino, El Duque, & Young for Vazquez. That's a high price to pay for one guy that some of you feel is expendable. It likewise ignores the fact that Kenny originally pitched Garland & Young for Vazquez. quote-unquote

Well, for one thing, it's only $18 million for two seasons (because of the subsidy from the D-Backs), and, we have the right to control Vazquez through at least 2008.

El Duque is guaranteed $4.6 million for this season, and could make as much as $6.5 million with the D-Backs. This seems unlikely, as he is already experiencing some injury issues....however, we cleared the uncertainty of paying El Duque that kind of money to pitch out of the bullpen...and we locked up Vazquez for at least three years at below market value.

Not to mention Luis Vizcaino will be making $1.775 million...and despite our bullpen problems, I am not 100% sure I would want him back at that salary, despite Hermanson's woes.

So, estimating it out, we really are getting Vazquez for $11 million over two seasons ($5.5 million per season), control his rights and we gave up Young to save all that money on El Duque, Vizcaino and the subsidy we're getting to offset Vazquez's salary. What about this doesn't make sense?

caulfield12
04-02-2006, 02:05 PM
Vizcaino is making $1.8 million this year.....Marte was very well paid for a set-up man as well.

Hermanson, same thing, he will make $3 million this year as a non-closer. Of course, you can argue we got our money's worth last season at $2 million, not that anyone expected it.

In fact, based on his experiences with Foulke, Koch, Howry, Hermanson, Jenks, Flash Gordon and now Jenks...I can't imagine KW giving anything more than a 2 year deal, or a one year deal with a club option.

TheOldRoman
04-02-2006, 02:24 PM
Simply put the White Sox are paying $20 mil + Vizcaino, El Duque, & Young for Vazquez. That's a high price to pay for one guy that some of you feel is expendable. It likewise ignores the fact that Kenny ALLEGEDLY pitched Garland & Young for Vazquez. quote-unquote

I fixed it for you. Nowhere in the links did it say the Sox offered Garland, let alone Garland and Young. It says Arizona wanted Garland, it didn't say the Sox offered him.

Ol' No. 2
04-02-2006, 02:27 PM
I fixed it for you. Nowhere in the links did it say the Sox offered Garland, let alone Garland and Young. It says Arizona wanted Garland, it didn't say the Sox offered him.But the actual facts of the rumor don't matter as much as its plausibility.:rolleyes:

caulfield12
04-02-2006, 02:31 PM
Ummm....oldroman, I am assuming you are talking to someone else?

For all we know, KW probably initially offered Anderson instead of Young. The one Garland deal we do know about was the deal for Erstad, with Singleton also departing. Thanks Disney...another reason corporations should not run ball clubs.

NardiWasHere
04-02-2006, 03:21 PM
Lip, his user name here and at Soxtalk is B.MAC3520 (minus the .) He always wore either 20 or 35 (his favorite player is Frank,) and because he knows Frank's number will be retired eventually, he added the two together for his number this season.

West hates the nickname for Brandon, so he placed a hack that changes those four letters in to "Fingernails on a Blackboard." If you look under the letter "B" in the members list, you'll see a name starting with f. Remember when he got tired of your acronym for the "Friends of Uncle Jerry?"

If Brandon really posted here under that name (a name he obviously picked for himself), why would someone change it and therefore take a chance of pissing off a Sox player... its not as though this was some 14 year old kid from Orland Park, it seems as though it was really McCarthy. I'm not taking a shot at West, just confused on the motivation he would have to potentially insult a Sox player on a Sox board. I personally would love to have Brandon give his insight and have a relationship with WSI, but if you tell him that his self-chosen nickname sounds like fingernails on a blackboard... I think the chance of him sticking around decreases a bit. Again, I don't want West to think this is an attack on him... trust me, I have felt the verbal wrath of a pissed off West... not pretty:o:

DickAllen72
04-02-2006, 03:24 PM
That is horrible yellow journalism. The quote from KW is fine, but Buehrle "seemed worried"? How exactly did he seem worried? Was he visually upset? Did you ASK him anything Cowley? No, you are just throwing crap at the wall in an attempt to start a controversy. Next time Buehrle "seems a bit upset" and supposedly knows the Sox wont resign him, how about you get a ****ing quote? Thanks.

What else is new? Cowley is just being Cowley yet again.

Frater Perdurabo
04-02-2006, 03:33 PM
Kenny is covering all the bases here, but I still cringed a little on hearing this come out of his mouth about resigning Buehrle next year:

"We've kidded around about it,'' Williams responded, when asked if talks with Buehrle had started. "I told him that once we get to his free-agent year I was just going to put a St. Louis Cardinals uniform in his locker and that would be the end of it. For the last five years, he's been talking about it. I don't know if we've got too much of a real shot, and that's OK.''

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sox/cst-spt-cowley02.html


Even if he was just "kidding around", I don't really see the point of him saying something like this in public right now?!


Leave it to Joe Cowley to find a way to lay a steaming pile of dung on the good news about Contreras, in an article that appears on Opening Day, the first game the Sox have played for their home fans since winning the World Series, in which Mark Buehrle will start. Joe Cowley is the epitome of a yellow journalist.

Brian26
04-02-2006, 03:43 PM
ERA is so overrated. The 4 most important pitching statistics are K/9, K/BB, WHIP, & OOPS.

Possibly the most uninformed comment in the history of WSI. Where do you even start when trying to debate this?

Ol' No. 2
04-02-2006, 04:02 PM
Possibly the most uninformed comment in the history of WSI. Where do you even start when trying to debate this?You don't. There's just no point in it.

Frater Perdurabo
04-02-2006, 04:09 PM
OOPS

Sorry for the pile-on, but isn't this what the propeller-head FOBB say after another season in which the subject of their adulation fails to win a World Series, and after their whipping boy, KW, puts together an 88% World Series winner, and before they try to come up with new stats to explain it all?
:)

21stcenturySox
04-02-2006, 04:37 PM
You don't. There's just no point in it.
Ahh C'mon pick up any book today or go to any website and you'll know how wrong you are. :rolleyes:

I'll bite. I can't figure out what OOPS stands for. I'm also clueless when it comes to PECOTA--except for Bill Pecota who used to be an utility guy with the Royals IIRC.

Still, I made it this far without knowing--perhaps it is wise to remain blissfully ignorant.

Jjav829
04-02-2006, 04:44 PM
ERA is so overrated. The 4 most important pitching statistics are K/9, K/BB, WHIP, & OOPS. Those are much better to use in evaluating a pitcher than ERA or W-L.

Yeah, you tell 'em!

And the most overrated team statistic is wins. Pythagenport wins and first, second and third order wins are much more important. Just pick up any book written by some stathead dumbass and you'll see it in the first 57 words. :?:

KRS1
04-02-2006, 04:46 PM
I'll bite. I can't figure out what OOPS stands for.

Opponents OPS.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-02-2006, 04:58 PM
ERA is an overrated stat. You can read any book on pitching statistics & the line itself will pop up in the 1st chapter.

Yep. Wins are overrated, too. And you know what the most underrated stat is? Losses.

It wasn't that the pitcher sucked; things just didn't work out for him. The hitters weren't cooperating.
:tongue:

You wouldn't be a relation to jeremyb1, would you?

A. Cavatica
04-02-2006, 05:16 PM
Why can't we all just get along? :D:

SoLongFrank has a point in that the statistics he chose are better measurements of what they purport to measure than other statistics, like ERA. (ERA is prone to all kinds of measurement error due to bullpen quality, manager tendencies, etc.)

What everyone else is saying is that statistics by themselves don't tell the whole story. We just lived through a season that proved that beyond all reasonable doubt.

I don't think anyone really wants to defend ERA as a statistic, it's just that you're not going to get much closer to the truth with any other statistic except wins.

TheOldRoman
04-02-2006, 09:46 PM
Ummm....oldroman, I am assuming you are talking to someone else?

For all we know, KW probably initially offered Anderson instead of Young. The one Garland deal we do know about was the deal for Erstad, with Singleton also departing. Thanks Disney...another reason corporations should not run ball clubs.
No, I was talking to you. We know the Sox offered Garland for Erstad several years ago. They also offered Garland and or Paulie for Randy Johnson before the 05 season. That, I was saying, is a fact. I was disputing the claim that the Sox offered Garland for Vazquez, let alone Garland and Young.

As for the Sox offereing Anderson first, I don't agree. Anderson is major league ready, while Young needs at least one more year. The Sox traded Rowand because they knew they had another CF waiting in the wings. No way they would have traded Anderson. It would have opened up too many holes.

SoLongFrank
04-03-2006, 01:07 PM
It's pointless to continue the debate. If you think you can play fantasy baseball looking mostly at ERA & Wins you're nuts.

Everyone knows you can't predict solely on stats. Especially when it comes to young players like Anderson & McCarthy. But you can't predict on promise alone either. You have to make a decision based on a combination of the two.

When it comes to veteran starters, # starts, ip, & losses will give you a much better picture of how competitive a guy is than just ERA or wins. Adding K/9, K/BB, WHIP, OOPS, & MOB will give you a much clearer picture of how dominant a guy can be.

As for the trade rumors, I don't recall ever reading or hearing Anderson's name mentioned. The CF job was his all along unless someone like Owens really surprised them.

caulfield12
04-03-2006, 01:22 PM
This is where these boards can get confusing...I am not the one who said that Garland was originally part of the Vazquez discussion, that was ¨solongfrank¨earlier in the thread.

The reason I would speculate about Anderson are the following reasons...

1. Local boy makes good a better story for the D-Backs than Sox
2. More polished player, college experience at the highest level....ready to contribute right away

Of course, KW and scouts like Young more than Anderson...any time you start throwing out comparisons with Eric Davis, it´s all over. At any rate, I think that obviously the Sox were aware that Owens was not ready to play....let alone play CF...and that is where the discussion ends.

Anderson was perceived to have a higher ceiling than Rowand and Jeremy Reed, and that´s why both were dealt. Young was our ultimate bargaining chip...but he could also become the next Jimmy Hurst.

SoLongFrank
04-03-2006, 01:39 PM
Those are good reasons IF Anderson was not expected to start. Young, Sweeney, & Owens are not ready to start. I don't belive Kenny ever entertained the idea of including Anderson in that trade.

As for Garland, it is blatantly obvious from the multitude of trade rumor links that his name came up in those discussions. Even if you can't follow that, Kenny's recent comments regarding how close it came to Garland being traded seem to solidify most of those rumors. Now whether or not Young & Garland was ever really discussed in the Vazquez talks remains to be seen. Just because Rosenthal mentioned it doesn't make it true. I don't think many national writers would know the difference between offering Garland & Young vs Garland & Rogowski.

Kenny's attitude towards Garland might have changed since. He was quoted more recently as stating Garland took less money in 2006 so that Kenny could try to sign Contreras. That specific reason was discussed. I think that means a lot to Kenny & certainly raises Jon's value to the organization beyond just his performance.

I think Mark & McCarthy are untouchables. But I think it's a question of best 2 out of 3 for the remaining RHers. One will be gone. You can't just assume one will accept or even excel at a move to closer.