PDA

View Full Version : Rogers Column On Trade Situation


Lip Man 1
07-15-2006, 01:02 AM
Here's Phil's column in the Tribune with the latest trade stuff.

My only comment is that as close as the divisional and wild card races are I can't under ANY circumstances see bringing up a minor league starter and giving them ten starts (assuming Phil is right and the Sox don't move Brandon out of the bullpen...) Like Gary Peters said in his WSI Interview that's the absolute worst thing you can do to a rookie pitcher and the team itself.

We'll see.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/

Lip

getonbckthr
07-15-2006, 01:11 AM
Didn't we try the rookie in a race move with Cotts, ya that didn't work.

Domeshot17
07-15-2006, 02:18 AM
Cotts wasnt a rookie my friend. He was young, but he had logged too many innings in previous years as a starter to qualify as a rookie. There is also a big difference between a YOUNG left hander who worked and earned his way into the set up role (started out in mop up/middle relief) and handing a rookie a rotation spot.

DSpivack
07-15-2006, 02:33 AM
Cotts wasnt a rookie my friend. He was young, but he had logged too many innings in previous years as a starter to qualify as a rookie. There is also a big difference between a YOUNG left hander who worked and earned his way into the set up role (started out in mop up/middle relief) and handing a rookie a rotation spot.

I believe you are talking about the Neal Cotts start at Yankee Stadium, which I was curious and looked up and did occur in his rookie year.

Box score: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B08280NYA2003.htm
Cotts: http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cottsne01.shtml

Domeshot17
07-15-2006, 03:14 AM
my fault, misread his statement. Thought it was sarcasm towards last season. not my night i guess haha

chaerulez
07-15-2006, 03:27 AM
I believe you are talking about the Neal Cotts start at Yankee Stadium, which I was curious and looked up and did occur in his rookie year.

Box score: http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B08280NYA2003.htm
Cotts: http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/cottsne01.shtml

Wasn't that the game Manuel wouldn't start Burhele even though the Sox had gotten a day off and therefore he wouldn't have been pitching on short rest, but for some reason Manuel didn't want to skip anyone in the rotation. Yeah, among other things, I'd say that's why he's not here anymore.

StockdaleForVeep
07-15-2006, 04:44 AM
Cotts wasnt a rookie my friend. He was young, but he had logged too many innings in previous years as a starter to qualify as a rookie. There is also a big difference between a YOUNG left hander who worked and earned his way into the set up role (started out in mop up/middle relief) and handing a rookie a rotation spot.

Cotts and harden, whom were grooved to be the next 1-2 for the oakland rotation started their seasons the same year as each other in 2003

jdm2662
07-15-2006, 08:55 AM
Wasn't that the game Manuel wouldn't start Burhele even though the Sox had gotten a day off and therefore he wouldn't have been pitching on short rest, but for some reason Manuel didn't want to skip anyone in the rotation. Yeah, among other things, I'd say that's why he's not here anymore.

Yes, due to a day off, Burhele had a full four days rest for the third game in the Yankees series. The Sox pounded the Yankees the first two games, and had a great chance to sweep, send a message, and be on there way to the division. Mark had also never pitched at Yankee stadium and really wanted to pitch. Sure enough, the day of the game, Manual decides to start Cotts because they already won the series. Cotts never gets out of the first inning, and that pretty much was the end for Manuel. Many have said this is when Manuel lost the team.

SOXfnNlansing
07-15-2006, 09:07 AM
MB lost the following day at Det (iirc) and the rest was history after that:(:

Frater Perdurabo
07-15-2006, 09:11 AM
I agree with Lip that now is NOT the time to trade a starting pitcher. If the Sox were out of contention, it would be wise for them to take advantage of the sellers' market and reap a king's ransom for one of them. But they need five starters just to get to the postseason, especially since it's going to take at least 100 wins to win the division and at least 95 wins for the Wild Card. Barring injuries, are the Twins and Tigers (whom we see a lot of in August and September) going to be "trying out" rookies every fifth start? Anyone who thinks so ought not to get involved in real estate transactions involving bridges...

[Frater Fantasy]
I still think the boldest, best thing to do is to ADD a starting pitcher and move Vazquez to the pen. Garcia is not suited for the pen because he seems to struggle more in the first inning. OTOH, Vazquez seems to come out sharp, throw a lot of pitches, and burn out in the middle innings.

As I've written elsewhere, my deeppink fantasy addition would be Dontrelle Willis.

For 2007, both Vazquez and Garcia would be traded (perhaps for Carl Crawford and middle relief help), giving the Sox a rotation of Buehrle, Contreras, Willis, Garland and McCarthy. This cheaper, younger yet better rotation would allow the Sox to offer long-term market deals to Buehrle and Crede.
[/Frater Fantasy]

Deeppink fantasies aside, the Sox need to strengthen the bullpen, not weaken the rotation.

SOXSINCE'70
07-15-2006, 09:28 AM
:hawk
"Like the saying goes, 'you can NEVER have too much pitching'.
If I know Kenny Williams,he's not going to hand a rookie a starting
position with the expectations being so high".

- what Hawk might say if asked the question "Do you trade a starter
to fortify your bullpen?" .

jdieter
07-15-2006, 10:02 AM
I think KW would take another look at Haeger and/or Logan who are both doing well and make a final evaluation of Cliffy before moving starting pitching. However what would really give us a lift is a successful rehab & return by Hermy.

BainesHOF
07-15-2006, 11:44 AM
Phil Rogers is a joke. I saw him on the Tribune's Comcast panel talk show Friday evening. At one point he noted that he recently heard the Yankees have only sold out five games this season. His implication was that Yankees attendance wasn't so hot. Then I'm watching Friday's game and Hawk notes the Yankees are averaging more than 50,000 per game and that they've already sold 4,000,000 tickets. It's just a small example of Rogers' cluelessness.

soxfanreggie
07-15-2006, 12:08 PM
Helps when you have a stadium that fits 57,545.

Here's some details on their stadium though. To get off topic, I don't think I've ever seen a team make a financial contribution like this. Most teams whine and moan that the public doesn't pay 100%.

Tenant: New York Yankees (AL)
Opening: April 2009
Status: Announce on June 15, 2005
Capacity: 51,800
Style: Open air
Surface: Grass
Architect: HOK Sport (Kansas City)
Construction: Undetermined
Owner: New York Yankees
Cost: $1.02 billion
Public financing: $220 million from New York City for parking facilities ($75 million), parkland along the waterfront ($135 million) and other work related to the stadium
Private financing: $800 million from the Yankees

Paying 80% is huge. I wonder if they're reducing the number of seats that much because they're adding so many luxury boxes.

areilly
07-15-2006, 12:20 PM
Paying 80% is huge. I wonder if they're reducing the number of seats that much because they're adding so many luxury boxes.

Possibly, but cutting the number of seats also allows the Yankee front office to make tickets scarcer and thus creating an illusion of increased demand, thus allowing them to mark up ticket prices - whether or not they're actually seeing a spike in ticket sales.

So instead of drawing an average 53,000 fans for an average of $20 a ticket ($1,060,000 per game), they could instead be looking at drawing 51,000 at an average $35 per ticket ($1,785,000) per game).

Obviously I'm making these numbers up, but I would imagine some similar thinking factored into the decision. Although I'm not sure regular economic principles apply with that particular operation anyway...

viagracat
07-15-2006, 12:33 PM
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that BA continues to come around; if he continues improve his hitting we maybe don't have to trade for a CF. You'd almost have to give up a starter to get a good one, and with a few possible chinks in the armor in our rotation (eg Garcia), now is not the time to give up somebody. But if it has to happen, I'd be OK with McCarthy taking the fifth spot. He can look great at times, such as in the 19-inning Boston game.

Biggest need right now, of course, is middle relief. Sox may have to give up a prospect to get one, but not a starter.

BigPapaPump
07-15-2006, 01:29 PM
What ever happened to the value of team chemistry? Last year thats all I ever heard, "Don't mess with the team's chemistry!". I think this is a championship caliber team, with the exception of Politte. He needs to go, but I'd be fine with filling the role with in house talent and then bring Vasquez in the pen for the playoffs. :rolleyes: