PDA

View Full Version : Can you spell D-Y-N-A-S-T-Y


southsidesoxfan1
05-17-2006, 02:39 PM
Didn't see this posted anywhere. Good phil rogers article.

Linky (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=rogers_phil&id=2447208)

RowanDye
05-17-2006, 02:43 PM
Definitely a good, positive article...I'm not too sure about some of his trade ideas though. Trade 2 starters for bullpen help to let Haeger, Broadway and Liotta battle for the 5th spot next year??

southsidesoxfan1
05-17-2006, 02:59 PM
Definitely a good, positive article...I'm not too sure about some of his trade ideas though. Trade 2 starters for bullpen help to let Haeger, Broadway and Liotta battle for the 5th spot next year??

I agree with you. Who needs payroll flexibility when the cash is pouring in. I hope Kenny sticks to his word about not moving any of the starters anytime soon.

I was shocked to see that the Charolette Knights are (30-8). Incredible!

It's damn good being a sox fan!

voodoochile
05-17-2006, 03:02 PM
Definitely a good, positive article...I'm not too sure about some of his trade ideas though. Trade 2 starters for bullpen help to let Haeger, Broadway and Liotta battle for the 5th spot next year??

I'll read the article later, but didn't the Sox just trade a bunch of bullpen people to strengthen their rotation? Why would they undo that now?

Hawkeroo1980
05-17-2006, 03:14 PM
I'll read the article later, but didn't the Sox just trade a bunch of bullpen people to strengthen their rotation? Why would they undo that now?

good point.

i sure would do a Boone for Viscaino swap right now

white sox bill
05-17-2006, 03:18 PM
good point.

i sure would do a Boone for Viscaino swap right now

Hell I'd do a Boone for Todd Richie right now--just kidding:smile:

Flight #24
05-17-2006, 03:29 PM
I'll read the article later, but didn't the Sox just trade a bunch of bullpen people to strengthen their rotation? Why would they undo that now?

Most interesting part, IMO was the Rogo/Phillips/Fields trade possibilities. That's your bullpen bait in-season right there to pick up a solid middle reliever or 2, leaving Cotts/Politte/Jenks at the back end. (Unless Nelson/Lopez come through - gotta love Kenny's plans upon plans!)

Personally, I think KW's preferred plan is to deal one of Garland/Garcia in the offseason to plug in McCarthy, put the $$$ towards Crede, and make Fields available for more help for the 3-peat.

Chez
05-17-2006, 03:38 PM
Certainly put me in a good mood. But didn't Phil Rogers basically write the same article in '03 about the Cubs pitching -- Juan Cruz, Mitre, Guzman, Brownlie, Hill, Sisco etc? You just never know about "can't miss" prospects (see Rausch, J. and Borchard, J.) -- they seem to frequently "miss."

Baby Fisk
05-17-2006, 03:39 PM
Personally, I think KW's preferred plan is to deal one of Garland/Garcia in the offseason to plug in McCarthy, put the $$$ towards Crede, and make Fields available for more help for the 3-peat.
I agree with this, but can't see Garcia being dealt while Ozzie is around. Garland is the likeliest pitcher traded, but his value would command the least return at this point in the season, as he is regressing back to his pre-2005 form. Cooper needs to start yelling at him again, and soon.

Hitmen77
05-17-2006, 03:43 PM
Certainly put me in a good mood. But didn't Phil Rogers basically write the same article in '03 about the Cubs pitching -- Juan Cruz, Mitre, Guzman, Brownlie, Hill, Sisco etc? You just never know about "can't miss" prospects (see Rausch, J. and Borchard, J.) -- they seem to frequently "miss."

That's why Kenny has been smart to trade prospects to win now. Of all those "hot" prospects that we've traded over the past 5 years or so during the KW era, how many are thriving in the majors right now?

Hitmen77
05-17-2006, 03:45 PM
Wow, 30-8 for Charlotte! That is amazing. I hope that's the result of alot of young prospects instead of a bunch of 28 yr old career minor leaguers.

What I'd like to know is why, with Charlotte's success, we can't find a single pitcher to promote to the majors who is at least serviceable to us?

Chez
05-17-2006, 03:52 PM
That's why Kenny has been smart to trade prospects to win now. Of all those "hot" prospects that we've traded over the past 5 years or so during the KW era, how many are thriving in the majors right now?

We agree!

Procol Harum
05-17-2006, 03:54 PM
Looks like I need to start paying a little bit of Randar-like attention to the Sox' minor league teams! Way to go Charlotte--very encouraging news for success in 2007 and beyond.

batmanZoSo
05-17-2006, 04:00 PM
Isn't a dominating minor league club often a bad sign?

HomeFish
05-17-2006, 04:06 PM
I'd much rather trade the hot prospects for bullpen help. The majority of them won't pan out.

JohnBasedowYoda
05-17-2006, 04:09 PM
How much of that hot start can be attributed to this umpire strike they're having?

MisterB
05-17-2006, 04:13 PM
Isn't a dominating minor league club often a bad sign?

No, but it can be misleading because a lot of dominant AAA teams are built on veteran "AAAA" players/ML washouts. About half the Knights' roster is prospects, and are outperforming the veterans for the most part, which is a good sign.

GoSox2K3
05-17-2006, 04:22 PM
How much of that hot start can be attributed to this umpire strike they're having?

Even if they were bad umps, aren't they bad umps for all the teams in that league?

So, how could the ump strike specifically help the Knights over any other team in their league?

bigsqwert
05-17-2006, 04:55 PM
Even if they were bad umps, aren't they bad umps for all the teams in that league?

So, how could the ump strike specifically help the Knights over any other team in their league?

Yeah. What he said.

JohnBasedowYoda
05-17-2006, 05:10 PM
It seems if you have a bunch of HS aged kids you open up the chance for more randomness. Not only are they bad but they might be trained differently, based upon whatever area they're from.

Vernam
05-17-2006, 07:54 PM
That's why Kenny has been smart to trade prospects to win now. Of all those "hot" prospects that we've traded over the past 5 years or so during the KW era, how many are thriving in the majors right now?You mean not including Florida starting right-fielder Borchard?:cool:

My first reaction to the thread title was that the D-word is like a mirror image of the Curse word. (Meaning, it makes me cringe.) Then I read the article, and my second reaction was to drool. But the trade proposals are Rogers at his worst -- just this side of Sam Smith territory.

I do think they'll have a tough decision re: Crede and Fields, but Joe is making it simpler all the time. You don't trade a glove man like him who, incidentally, hits around .300 and is the team's best clutch hitter. I don't agree that they'd need to dump a starting pitcher's salary to afford Crede long-term. KW means it when he says you can't have too much pitching.

That being said, I wonder if all of a sudden Garland is harder to trade now that he's locked up, contract-wise. I wouldn't have thought so, but he's been getting hit hard again tonight. Maybe not such a bargain after all . . .

Vernam

Iguana775
05-17-2006, 09:15 PM
Hell I'd do a Boone for Todd Richie right now--just kidding:smile:

I wonder what Navaro is doing these days.... :supernana:

Hitmen77
05-17-2006, 09:28 PM
You mean not including Florida starting right-fielder Borchard?:cool:

My first reaction to the thread title was that the D-word is like a mirror image of the Curse word. (Meaning, it makes me cringe.) Then I read the article, and my second reaction was to drool. But the trade proposals are Rogers at his worst -- just this side of Sam Smith territory.

I do think they'll have a tough decision re: Crede and Fields, but Joe is making it simpler all the time. You don't trade a glove man like him who, incidentally, hits around .300 and is the team's best clutch hitter. I don't agree that they'd need to dump a starting pitcher's salary to afford Crede long-term. KW means it when he says you can't have too much pitching.

That being said, I wonder if all of a sudden Garland is harder to trade now that he's locked up, contract-wise. I wouldn't have thought so, but he's been getting hit hard again tonight. Maybe not such a bargain after all . . .

Vernam

Was he getting hit hard? I didn't watch the game. His final numbers in the box score looked fine to me, even if it was the weak hitting D-Rays.

Unless Garland really tanks all year, I don't think his contract will make him too hard to trade once his no-trade clause expires. There will always be teams desparate for pitching and Garland, even before '05, has always been serviceable and could be relied upon for about 200 innings per year.

Lip Man 1
05-17-2006, 09:52 PM
With respect I heard this talk before in the early 1980's and the early 1990's.

Before we all get carried away let's make the post season in consecutive seasons for the first time in 106 year history of the franchise.

Interesting trivia bit: I'm still checking this but I think the White Sox are the only team left out of the original 16 franchises (and their descendents i.e. Washington became Minnesota etc...) who HAVE NOT made the post season in consecutive years.

Regarding the pitching staff. Just my opinion (at least I'm consistent) as long as the Big Six are healthy and producing then KEEP THEM...KEEP THEM ALL.

A bird in the hand (experienced guys who actually WIN in the bigs) is worth two or three or four 'can't miss kids' who soil themselves on the mound.

The fans will be there, the bad old days are done. Payroll should no longer be an issue or an excuse with this franchise ever again.

Trade the 'can't miss kids' to some sucker stupid enough to take them for experienced parts to bolster the franchise at the major league level.

Lip

Johnny Mostil
05-17-2006, 10:00 PM
Interesting trivia bit: I'm still checking this but I think the White Sox are the only team left out of the original 16 franchises (and their descendents i.e. Washington became Minnesota etc...) who HAVE NOT made the post season in consecutive years.


Fascinating--I hadn't thought of this, but you're right . . .

Edit: in fact, as near as I can tell, the only teams (besides the Sox) never to make the postseason in consecutive years are the Devil Rays, Rangers, Rockies, Marlins, and Expos/Nationals . . .

All the more reason to appreciate what KW appears (so far) to be doing this year as well . . .

Hitmen77
05-17-2006, 10:45 PM
Fascinating--I hadn't thought of this, but you're right . . .

Edit: in fact, as near as I can tell, the only teams (besides the Sox) never to make the postseason in consecutive years are the Devil Rays, Rangers, Rockies, Marlins, and Expos/Nationals . . .

All the more reason to appreciate what KW appears (so far) to be doing this year as well . . .

Texas made the playoffs in both 1998 and 1999.

...and yeah, the Cubs made the playoffs in consecutive years, but that was almost 100 years ago.

Lip has a good point. I remember in 1984, after winning the AL West by 20 games the year before, everyone assumed the Sox were a shoe-in to return to the playoffs. I don't like talking about "dynasty" at this point. In fact, headline for the article that started this thread doesn't say "dynasty" it says
With a number of key players signed long term and a host of talented prospects in the minors, the White Sox could be a factor in the American League for years to come

That's perfectly correct - the Sox have the pieces in place such that they could be an AL powerhouse for years to come. Now they just got to win the games for real.

thomas35forever
05-17-2006, 10:50 PM
Read that article this afternoon. Please let these future outcomes be true!!!!!

gobears1987
05-17-2006, 11:18 PM
I wonder what Navaro is doing these days.... :supernana:Damn! You beat me to it.:tongue:

Chips
05-17-2006, 11:25 PM
I'd much rather trade the hot prospects for bullpen help. The majority of them won't pan out.

Exactly, we could use some good bullpen help right now.
All of these guys aren't going to succeed.

How many major league stars have come from farm system anyways?

elrod
05-17-2006, 11:33 PM
Weren't the Charlotte Knights buried in last place last year? I guess the great Barons players from last year are excelling in Charlotte now.

Vernam
05-17-2006, 11:35 PM
Was he getting hit hard? I didn't watch the game. His final numbers in the box score looked fine to me, even if it was the weak hitting D-Rays.The result is all that matters, I suppose, but Tampa sure seemed to be hitting a lot of balls hard. My theory about Garland this year is that he can't actually be as bad as he's looked. Even when most of us couldn't stand him in 2004, he pitched great for all but one or two innings per game. IOW, the fact that he's been so hittable this year is an anomaly, not a reversion to old form. I guess that means I'm optimistic because he's never been this awful. :nuts:

Vernam

TheOldRoman
05-18-2006, 12:53 AM
Even if they were bad umps, aren't they bad umps for all the teams in that league?

So, how could the ump strike specifically help the Knights over any other team in their league?
It isn't that. The bad umpires wouldn't necessarily make our farm team better than others, but it could make our prospects look better than they actually are.
Say the bad umps are giving all pitchers an extra 8 inches off the plate in each direction (the Johan Santana treatment), and our pitchers thrived because they got a lot of called strikes that were out of the actual zone or they got batters to chase due to the huge zone. When the prospects got to the majors, they wouldn't be nearly as good because they couldn't find the real strikezone.

I am not saying that is the case, I am just giving a hypothetic scenario.

Johnny Mostil
05-18-2006, 07:54 AM
Texas made the playoffs in both 1998 and 1999.

...and yeah, the Cubs made the playoffs in consecutive years, but that was almost 100 years ago.

Lip has a good point. I remember in 1984, after winning the AL West by 20 games the year before, everyone assumed the Sox were a shoe-in to return to the playoffs. I don't like talking about "dynasty" at this point. In fact, headline for the article that started this thread doesn't say "dynasty"

Yep, I forgot about Texas. (I almost forgot about the Brewers, too, but I guess we ought to consider their '81 and '82 seasons consecutive playoff appearances.)

I also agree it's silly to talk about a "dynasty" this early in the season. And it is quite tough to repeat in baseball. Still, even with some of the rough games of the past week, I like what I see so far this year . . .

GoSox2K3
05-18-2006, 08:24 AM
It isn't that. The bad umpires wouldn't necessarily make our farm team better than others, but it could make our prospects look better than they actually are.
Say the bad umps are giving all pitchers an extra 8 inches off the plate in each direction (the Johan Santana treatment), and our pitchers thrived because they got a lot of called strikes that were out of the actual zone or they got batters to chase due to the huge zone. When the prospects got to the majors, they wouldn't be nearly as good because they couldn't find the real strikezone.

I am not saying that is the case, I am just giving a hypothetic scenario.

...except that our AAA pitchers are doing well and our AAA hitters are doing well. Which must mean that the opponents pitchers and hitters aren't doing so well when playing the Knights. Someone must be doing something right down there.

My main question is whether Charlotte is really full of promising prospects - or are they winning with a bunch of great AAAA players?

digdagdug23
05-18-2006, 08:43 AM
great article, positive outlook for our beloved Sox, but I have one question....

I really love Ray Liotta, he was fabulous in "Goodfellas", but is he really that good of a baseball player?

:rolling:

southsidesoxfan1
05-18-2006, 10:10 AM
I don't like talking about "dynasty" at this point.
I know it's premature... but
DON'T STOP BELIEVING:bandance:

chisox117
05-18-2006, 10:50 AM
I don't like talking about "dynasty" at this point.


I know it's premature... but
DON'T STOP BELIEVING:bandance:

Well put.
(I'll drink to that!):gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

maurice
05-18-2006, 11:58 AM
Say the bad umps are giving all pitchers an extra 8 inches off the plate in each direction (the Johan Santana treatment), and our pitchers thrived because they got a lot of called strikes that were out of the actual zone or they got batters to chase due to the huge zone.

So what you saying is that Josh Fields is really a .450 hitter and not merely a .350 hitter?

fuzzy_patters
05-18-2006, 12:03 PM
Exactly, we could use some good bullpen help right now.
All of these guys aren't going to succeed.

How many major league stars have come from farm system anyways?

Every major league star came from a farm system. John Olerud was the last major leaguer to go straight to the big leagues.