PDA

View Full Version : Carl Crawford?


skottyj242
10-03-2006, 11:09 AM
Per rotoworld:

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/playerpages/player_main.aspx?sport=MLB&id=3410

SoxSpeed22
10-03-2006, 11:11 AM
....
....
....
....
Here it comes.

JohnTucker0814
10-03-2006, 11:16 AM
I'd be willing to part with Vazques or Garcia, Owens and AAA pitching prospect for Crawford and A pitching prospect from Tampa Bay... we need to get at least a low level pitching prospect in return, ala Cotts with the Koch/Foulke deal.

oeo
10-03-2006, 11:21 AM
:D:

I hope he's wearing silver and black next year.

skottyj242
10-03-2006, 11:21 AM
....
....
....
....
Here it comes.


What's that supposed to mean? I know it has been talked about numerous times here but this is actually the first time I have heard it and read it from a reliable source. Get off your high horse.

palehozenychicty
10-03-2006, 11:22 AM
I'd be willing to part with Vazques or Garcia, Owens and AAA pitching prospect for Crawford and A pitching prospect from Tampa Bay... we need to get at least a low level pitching prospect in return, ala Cotts with the Koch/Foulke deal.

I'd give up Vazquez. Freddy will have a really good year somewhere in '07. You heard it here first.

eriqjaffe
10-03-2006, 11:24 AM
The only thing I don't like about Crawford is the low walk totals. Everything else is an upgrade over Podsednik. I'd be happy to see Vazquez or Garcia (preferably Vazquez) leave it it'd bring Crawford here.

DaleJRFan
10-03-2006, 11:26 AM
The only thing I don't like about Crawford is the low walk totals. Everything else is an upgrade over Podsednik. I'd be happy to see Vazquez or Garcia (preferably Vazquez) leave it it'd bring Crawford here.

Tampa Bay doesn't want older, high-salary starting pitchers. McCarthy would have to go to get Crawford, so we can all forget it.

Palehose13
10-03-2006, 11:27 AM
http://re3.mm-a3.yimg.com/image/785064473

Palehose13
10-03-2006, 11:27 AM
Tampa Bay doesn't want older, high-salary starting pitchers. McCarthy would have to go to get Crawford, so we can all forget it.

I'd give up McCarthy.

Thome25
10-03-2006, 11:28 AM
Crawford is EXACTLY the type of player we need to get in return for our pitching surplus.

I'd hate to see KW trade one of our starters just for the purpose of opening up a spot for McCarthy and getting nothing but some prospects in return.

Open up a spot for McCarthy AND get something valuable in return.

GO GET CRAWFORD KW!!!!!

Flight #24
10-03-2006, 11:30 AM
Tampa Bay doesn't want older, high-salary starting pitchers. McCarthy would have to go to get Crawford, so we can all forget it.

While in general, I agree, I think they might take a veteran like Vaz who they can control at a reasonable salary for 2 years - if they get a pretty good pitching prospect and hitting prospect. I'm thinking along the lines of a Sweeney & Broadway. If you can swap either Owens for Sweeney or another pitcher for Broadway, it's a steal for the Sox.

I hope they don't send away Fields, I want to keep that kid.

Thome25
10-03-2006, 11:30 AM
I'd give up McCarthy.

I'd give up McCarthy too. Do we know for sure that McCarthy isn't going to be the second coming of Kip Wells?

Palehose13
10-03-2006, 11:32 AM
I'd give up McCarthy too. Do we know for sure that McCarthy isn't going to be the second coming of Kip Wells?

No but everyone seems to love prospects and Brian Greise. :cool:

Thome25
10-03-2006, 11:33 AM
What's that supposed to mean? I know it has been talked about numerous times here but this is actually the first time I have heard it and read it from a reliable source. Get off your high horse.


This isn't a loaded question or sarcasm. How reliable is rotoworld?

Palehose13
10-03-2006, 11:35 AM
This isn't a loaded question or sarcasm. How reliable is rotoworld?
The source was the Arlington Heights Daily Herald

The Immigrant
10-03-2006, 11:35 AM
Tampa Bay doesn't want older, high-salary starting pitchers. McCarthy would have to go to get Crawford, so we can all forget it.

My guess is they'll ask for McCarthy but take what they can get, especially if we pick up some of the salary. Given Crawford's favorable contract, I can see JR agreeing to do so. Tampa Bay desperately needs some reliable inning eaters and is unlikely to find any through free agency.

Thome25
10-03-2006, 11:38 AM
No but everyone seems to love prospects and Brian Greise. :cool:

You got that right. Prime example. Alot of posters on here think BA is going to be the second coming of Jim Edmonds or Grady Sizemore.

With that said, I hope BA does well for our White Sox and I'm eating crow in the near future.

We have a relatively small window of opportunity with this team and these players. If you have a chance to get a Carl Crawford who is also still young and cheap, YOU DO IT. Even if it costs us McCarthy.:D:

DaleJRFan
10-03-2006, 11:52 AM
Why does everyone keep calling McCarthy a "prospect"?? Am I the only one who watched the games he started? How about an 8 strikeout dominating performance? Or maybe shutting down Boston on Labor day??

I just don't understand why anyone would want to trade a legit #3 and potential staff ace that the Sox would control for six seasons - even for Carl Crawford. I just don't get it. Maybe someone can make a case otherwise and I'll agree with trading McCarthy....

palehozenychicty
10-03-2006, 11:56 AM
We have a relatively small window of opportunity with this team and these players. If you have a chance to get a Carl Crawford who is also still young and cheap, YOU DO IT. Even if it costs us McCarthy.:D:

This is where I feel that they should go after Crawford. The Sox, as constructed, will undergo a significant makeover after '07 with many expiring contracts on the ledger. Crawford is young, cheap, and improving by the annum. McCarthy has a chance to be good, with a projected ceiling as a #3, but he is replaceable.

Tekijawa
10-03-2006, 11:56 AM
I'd throw in Podsednik too if they wanted him... we don't need him any more and he'd be a semi-cheep option for the D-RAYS. I can hear Dicky V screaming his name right now baaaaaaaaaaaaaby!

Thome25
10-03-2006, 11:57 AM
You got that right. Prime example. Alot of posters on here think BA is going to be the second coming of Jim Edmonds or Grady Sizemore.

With that said, I hope BA does well for our White Sox and I'm eating crow in the near future.

We have a relatively small window of opportunity with this team and these players. If you have a chance to get a Carl Crawford who is also still young and cheap, YOU DO IT. Even if it costs us McCarthy.:D:

Why does everyone keep calling McCarthy a "prospect"?? Am I the only one who watched the games he started? How about an 8 strikeout dominating performance? Or maybe shutting down Boston on Labor day??

I just don't understand why anyone would want to trade a legit #3 and potential staff ace that the Sox would control for six seasons - even for Carl Crawford. I just don't get it. Maybe someone can make a case otherwise and I'll agree with trading McCarthy....

'Nuff Said. Crawford is a ballplayer who has already proven himself in the league, is still young, can hit AND steal some bases, and has a bargain of a contract. Look at the bold and underlined sentence.

We still don't know exactly what we're getting from McCarthy. We know what we would get from Crawford for years to come.

Tekijawa
10-03-2006, 12:03 PM
We still don't know exactly what we're getting from McCarthy. We know what we would get from Crawford for years to come.


Who would Anderson and his harem of women go out to the bars with then?

Jjav829
10-03-2006, 12:09 PM
Why does everyone keep calling McCarthy a "prospect"?? Am I the only one who watched the games he started? How about an 8 strikeout dominating performance? Or maybe shutting down Boston on Labor day??

I just don't understand why anyone would want to trade a legit #3 and potential staff ace that the Sox would control for six seasons - even for Carl Crawford. I just don't get it. Maybe someone can make a case otherwise and I'll agree with trading McCarthy....

I agree with you here. Even for Carl Crawford, it would be hard for me to say part with McCarthy. It's not just as simple as looking at the player we're getting in return. Crawford is a great player. One of the best young players around. But the reality is that several of our starters are getting up in age, and they are all going to be free agents very soon. We don't want to be in a situation in two years where we have Carl Crawford but our pitching staff is Garland, a very old Contreras, Broadway, Haegar, __________. McCarthy's age and contract status is extremely valuable to us.

MadetoOrta
10-03-2006, 12:15 PM
Crawford brings speed and DEFENSE! His defense will make our starters better. Go get 'em KW!

Palehose13
10-03-2006, 12:16 PM
Why does everyone keep calling McCarthy a "prospect"?? Am I the only one who watched the games he started? How about an 8 strikeout dominating performance? Or maybe shutting down Boston on Labor day??

I just don't understand why anyone would want to trade a legit #3 and potential staff ace that the Sox would control for six seasons - even for Carl Crawford. I just don't get it. Maybe someone can make a case otherwise and I'll agree with trading McCarthy....

I still don't see McCarthy as "proven". Sure he's had some good starts, maybe even a few great ones, but he was inconsistent out of the bullpen and hasn't yet proven that he can do it year after year. I'd love to give them Vazquez instead, but if they want McCarthy I'd give him up for Crawford.

1917
10-03-2006, 12:16 PM
Arlington Heights Herlad is right up there with the Beverly Review

CLR01
10-03-2006, 12:20 PM
No but everyone seems to love prospects and Brian Greise. :cool:


Not as much as they love ASuck over in Philly.

Palehose13
10-03-2006, 12:24 PM
Not as much as they love ASuck over in Philly.
Hey, how about them dolphins? :redneck

CLR01
10-03-2006, 12:37 PM
Hey, how about them dolphins? :redneck


:puking:

Thome25
10-03-2006, 12:40 PM
I agree with you here. Even for Carl Crawford, it would be hard for me to say part with McCarthy. It's not just as simple as looking at the player we're getting in return. Crawford is a great player. One of the best young players around. But the reality is that several of our starters are getting up in age, and they are all going to be free agents very soon. We don't want to be in a situation in two years where we have Carl Crawford but our pitching staff is Garland, a very old Contreras, Broadway, Haegar, __________. McCarthy's age and contract status is extremely valuable to us.

Like I said in an earlier post, this team has a relatively small window to win with the players we have now.

I'd hate to see us not win the WS again with the team constructed the way it is now because we didn't go out and get the players we need to win now. (Crawford would help us now and in the future.)

What's more important? Winning with a strong club now and getting the pieces we need to win the WS, or worrying about what the club might look like in 2010?

I'm a little greedy now. I want to see another World Champion NOW and not worry about what the starting rotation is going to look like from 2010-2015.

There's going to be another downturn for this team in the future. Every team has them. Instead of worrying about that we should focus on winning it all while we still have the chance.

otis
10-03-2006, 12:45 PM
From what I have heard, the DRays view trading Crawford as their best option to get young starting pitching. He is considered tradeable because of Delmon Young. If the White Sox make a play, look for a three way trade with a national league playoff type team. The Sox would ship a starter (Not McCarthy) for a package that would go to TB with the Sox getting Crawford.

getonbckthr
10-03-2006, 12:50 PM
One of 2 deals I would offer Tampa:
Vazquez (plus $4 million dollars) and either Anderson or Sweeney, decide who is in CF next season.

Other would be Mccarthy and Owens.

Hitmen77
10-03-2006, 12:52 PM
The source was the Arlington Heights Daily Herald

Here's a direct link to the Daily Herald article:

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=234093

Flight #24
10-03-2006, 12:56 PM
I agree with you here. Even for Carl Crawford, it would be hard for me to say part with McCarthy. It's not just as simple as looking at the player we're getting in return. Crawford is a great player. One of the best young players around. But the reality is that several of our starters are getting up in age, and they are all going to be free agents very soon. We don't want to be in a situation in two years where we have Carl Crawford but our pitching staff is Garland, a very old Contreras, Broadway, Haegar, __________. McCarthy's age and contract status is extremely valuable to us.


Well said. For everyone saying "Carl's young & cheap", it's really Carl + Garcia or McCarthy plus whatever you can buy for 10-12M (Garcia+Crawford salaries).

And that's just for '07. For '08 it would be ???? plus Crawford after Garcia leaves.

I'd give up Fields if I had to. But I don't think I'd give up McCarthy. Garcia/Vazquez+Sweeney+Broadway is a very nice return for Tampa.

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2006, 01:32 PM
Here's a direct link to the Daily Herald article:

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=234093All I read in that article is a lot of speculation by Scot Gregor. He's never been what you'd call a reliable source in the past.

I'm sure Kenny would love to have Carl Crawford. This is news?

Flight #24
10-03-2006, 01:41 PM
From what I have heard, the DRays view trading Crawford as their best option to get young starting pitching. He is considered tradeable because of Delmon Young. If the White Sox make a play, look for a three way trade with a national league playoff type team. The Sox would ship a starter (Not McCarthy) for a package that would go to TB with the Sox getting Crawford.

That makes some sense, and what might also make sense is the Mets. I'd bet they'd love to get a guy like Garcia, who'd come on a 1-year deal at a reasonable price and give them some solid insurance for Pedro going down again. He could come to the NL and dominate. Only question is what young pitching they'd be willing to part with.

DaleJRFan
10-03-2006, 01:47 PM
From what I have heard, the DRays view trading Crawford as their best option to get young starting pitching. He is considered tradeable because of Delmon Young. If the White Sox make a play, look for a three way trade with a national league playoff type team. The Sox would ship a starter (Not McCarthy) for a package that would go to TB with the Sox getting Crawford.

This scenario makes the most sense. Move Vazquez/Garcia to the NL for MLB-ready prospects (similar to the Hudson and Mulder trades) and couple those prospects with our own for Crawford... maybe... still sounds too good to be true! :smile:

Rocky Soprano
10-03-2006, 01:51 PM
Please let this happen, I want Crawford on the Sox!

Hitmen77
10-03-2006, 01:59 PM
.... McCarthy has a chance to be good, with a projected ceiling as a #3, but he is replaceable.

How is he replacable? Where do the Sox find another #3 starter that they can have for cheap for several seasons to come? Our farm system hasn't exactly been cranking out the successful starters.

PorkChopExpress
10-03-2006, 02:08 PM
That makes some sense, and what might also make sense is the Mets. I'd bet they'd love to get a guy like Garcia, who'd come on a 1-year deal at a reasonable price and give them some solid insurance for Pedro going down again. He could come to the NL and dominate. Only question is what young pitching they'd be willing to part with.

A deal with St. Louis may be a possibility, dealing Buehrle, St. Louis dealing that Wainwright kid and the Sox getting Crawford. I'm sure there will have to be some minor-league fillers as well, but I could see KW making a deal like this as he has made it clear he will deal anybody. Don't get me wrong, I do not want this to be the deal since I think Buehrle will bounce back strong next year, but when was the last time KW listened to what I want?

skottyj242
10-03-2006, 02:08 PM
Charlie Haeger.

soxfan13
10-03-2006, 02:43 PM
Why does everyone keep calling McCarthy a "prospect"?? Am I the only one who watched the games he started? How about an 8 strikeout dominating performance? Or maybe shutting down Boston on Labor day??

I just don't understand why anyone would want to trade a legit #3 and potential staff ace that the Sox would control for six seasons - even for Carl Crawford. I just don't get it. Maybe someone can make a case otherwise and I'll agree with trading McCarthy....

Why do people that are die hard McCarthy backers seem to forget his first 3 or 4 starts and his one other start this year, where he showed glimpses of just being a marginal major league pitcher not the second coming of CY Young.

hi im skot
10-03-2006, 02:54 PM
A deal with St. Louis may be a possibility, dealing Buehrle, St. Louis dealing that Wainwright kid and the Sox getting Crawford. I'm sure there will have to be some minor-league fillers as well, but I could see KW making a deal like this as he has made it clear he will deal anybody. Don't get me wrong, I do not want this to be the deal since I think Buehrle will bounce back strong next year, but when was the last time KW listened to what I want?

Buehrle isn't going anywhere.

Especially when there are so many other trade options.

Jjav829
10-03-2006, 03:00 PM
Why do people that are die hard McCarthy backers seem to forget his first 3 or 4 starts and his one other start this year, where he showed glimpses of just being a marginal major league pitcher not the second coming of CY Young.

Maybe because he was a rookie and a rookie's first few starts aren't exactly a great indicator of what type of pitcher he will turn out to be.

Jjav829
10-03-2006, 03:07 PM
Like I said in an earlier post, this team has a relatively small window to win with the players we have now.

I'd hate to see us not win the WS again with the team constructed the way it is now because we didn't go out and get the players we need to win now. (Crawford would help us now and in the future.)

What's more important? Winning with a strong club now and getting the pieces we need to win the WS, or worrying about what the club might look like in 2010?

I'm a little greedy now. I want to see another World Champion NOW and not worry about what the starting rotation is going to look like from 2010-2015.

There's going to be another downturn for this team in the future. Every team has them. Instead of worrying about that we should focus on winning it all while we still have the chance.

But the point is that we're trying to avoid those downturns. The way you avoid downturns is by constantly mixing in young players who will keep your team from getting too old while still helping you win.

The idea is to try to mix the win now with a strong club philosophy with the keep in mind the future philosophy so that you can compete now and in the future.

Like I said, Crawford is a great player and I would love to have him on our team. And if we can get him without giving away our entire future, I'd be extremely happy seeing him in a Sox uniform for the next 10+ years. But if the price is McCarthy and another top prospect or two, I'll keep the prospects and take someone like Pierre, who gets on base at a similar ate to Crawford and steals just as many bases. Crawford's true value is in his combination of developing power and speed, but as a leadoff hitter, I'm more concerned with the speed which Pierre (or Roberts, Freel, etc.) provides without giving up McCarthy.

soxfan13
10-03-2006, 03:08 PM
Maybe because he was a rookie and a rookie's first few starts aren't exactly a great indicator of what type of pitcher he will turn out to be.

Yes I agree, but so far the numbers are leaning to OK pitcher not great pitcher. Now if he did what Liriano did this year as a rookie I would say yes he is an untouchable. If we can get Crawford in a deal for McCarthy I say do it.

Flight #24
10-03-2006, 03:22 PM
Yes I agree, but so far the numbers are leaning to OK pitcher not great pitcher. Now if he did what Liriano did this year as a rookie I would say yes he is an untouchable. If we can get Crawford in a deal for McCarthy I say do it.

Player A's first 2 years (called up at age 21)
45 games (9 starts), 129IP, 85ER (5.93ERA), 92SO, 70BB, 152H

Player B's first 2 years (called up at age 22)
2005-2006 stats
65 games (12starts), 151.2IP, 74ER (4.39ERA), 117SO, 50BB, 135H

You guessed it - B is McCarthy and A is the apparently "touchable" Johan Santana. Well, "touchable" to anyone but the Twins GM I suppose, luckily for them.

SoxSpeed22
10-03-2006, 03:55 PM
What's that supposed to mean? I know it has been talked about numerous times here but this is actually the first time I have heard it and read it from a reliable source. Get off your high horse.Sorry you took it so personally, I would have said that no matter who started the thread.
Offseason= rumors all over the place.
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=1370278&highlight=bomb+shelter#post1370278
and
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=62565&page=13&highlight=Thome+Rowand
post 187

soxfan13
10-03-2006, 03:58 PM
Player A's first 2 years (called up at age 21)
45 games (9 starts), 129IP, 85ER (5.93ERA), 92SO, 70BB, 152H

Player B's first 2 years (called up at age 22)
2005-2006 stats
65 games (12starts), 151.2IP, 74ER (4.39ERA), 117SO, 50BB, 135H

You guessed it - B is McCarthy and A is the apparently "touchable" Johan Santana. Well, "touchable" to anyone but the Twins GM I suppose, luckily for them.

Now take out the relief appearances which everyone likes to do on this site because "McCarthy should be a starter" and you get this

Liriano 18 GS 13-4 record 2.88 ERA 140 K's 32 W's

McCarthy 13 GS 4-3 record 4.54 ERA 52 K's 16 W's


I guess McCarthy his the future Cy Young winner you got me.

EDIT I COMPARED HIM TO LIRIANO NOT SANTANA

Flight #24
10-03-2006, 04:09 PM
EDIT I COMPARED HIM TO LIRIANO NOT SANTANA

My point was that just because he didn't put up ROY stats as a reliever doesn't mean he's not likely to be a very effective starter. In fact, his history as a starter tells you that he likely will be. In 68IP as a starter, he's put up a 4.12ERA with 51Ks & only 16 BBs and has opponents batting .237. And that's as a rookie.

Why people are so quick to give up on that I have no idea.

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2006, 04:51 PM
My point was that just because he didn't put up ROY stats as a reliever doesn't mean he's not likely to be a very effective starter. In fact, his history as a starter tells you that he likely will be. In 68IP as a starter, he's put up a 4.12ERA with 51Ks & only 16 BBs and has opponents batting .237. And that's as a rookie.

Why people are so quick to give up on that I have no idea.Not me. Starting pitching is the most valuable commodity in baseball and good young starting pitching is priceless. No way in hell I'd trade Brandon McCarthy for Carl Crawford, and that's saying a lot.

CWSpalehoseCWS
10-03-2006, 05:21 PM
Not me. Starting pitching is the most valuable commodity in baseball and good young starting pitching is priceless. No way in hell I'd trade Brandon McCarthy for Carl Crawford, and that's saying a lot.

I agree. Especially with Juan Pierre as a possiblility.

Ol' No. 2
10-03-2006, 05:34 PM
I agree. Especially with Juan Pierre as a possiblility.:puking:

I'd rather keep Scott Podsednik.

MarySwiss
10-03-2006, 05:52 PM
:puking:

I'd rather keep Scott Podsednik.
Agree. I just don't get this Juan Pierre love.

MadetoOrta
10-03-2006, 06:17 PM
I concur that good young pitching is a great commodity. I just see Crawford as a budding superstar at a great price with his current contract.

nodiggity59
10-03-2006, 07:25 PM
I think Crawford could be had without losing McCarthy. I'd be willing to part with any two of our prospects plus one of our starters, or a three way dealing the players we get for the pitcher plus two of our prospects.

Not to thread hijack, but does anyone else want to trade Contreras? His age and second half performance scare me. I'd be to interested to see if we could tease Heilman, Endy Chavez, and Milledge from the Mets for JC. Such a deal would set up a Crawford trade of say Broadway, Milledge, and Haeger perhaps?

Bump34
10-03-2006, 07:33 PM
FYI...

Haven't heard anything about Crawford going anywhere... BUT if the Rays were to trade him to the White Sox it would be for pitching... pitching and more pitching... PLUS... it would have to be someone signed... or signable past 2008...

DaveIsHere
10-03-2006, 07:38 PM
FYI...

Haven't heard anything about Crawford going anywhere... BUT if the Rays were to trade him to the White Sox it would be for pitching... pitching and more pitching... PLUS... it would have to be someone signed... or signable past 2008...


Hi Dave!!! Miss You!!!:cheers:

PS: Thanks for the info.

Sox-o-matic
10-03-2006, 07:57 PM
Now take out the relief appearances which everyone likes to do on this site because "McCarthy should be a starter" and you get this

Liriano 18 GS 13-4 record 2.88 ERA 140 K's 32 W's

McCarthy 13 GS 4-3 record 4.54 ERA 52 K's 16 W's


I guess McCarthy his the future Cy Young winner you got me.

EDIT I COMPARED HIM TO LIRIANO NOT SANTANA

Here's all the comparison you need:

McCarthy is a young RHP who throws arrow-straight fastballs in the 88-91 mph range with a good change and a good curve.

Liriano is a young LHP who has movement on his mid to upper 90's fastball, a good change, and an almost unhittable slider.

Numbers mean jack **** when comparing these guys. If you want to compare Brandon to someone else, pick a similar pitcher. Santana doesn't count.

jabrch
10-03-2006, 08:18 PM
I'd give up McCarthy.

I'd pack his bags.

shoelessshaun27!
10-03-2006, 08:32 PM
That would be amazing.

Soxfanspcu11
10-03-2006, 11:07 PM
:D:

I hope he's wearing silver and black next year.

AGREED.

I'd give up Vazquez. Freddy will have a really good year somewhere in '07. You heard it here first.

YOUR RIGHT! He has finally learned that he doesn't have to be a power pitcher. It seems that he has finally learned how to throw his splitter properly and he has been making hitters look BAD! I really hope that he is back with the Sox next year, and I would never have said that before he developed and perfected that splitter.

Tampa Bay doesn't want older, high-salary starting pitchers. McCarthy would have to go to get Crawford, so we can all forget it.

Why? It's all about winning NOW! Crawford gives us that chance.

I'd give up McCarthy.

HELL YES!

Beautox
10-04-2006, 02:26 AM
Why does everyone keep calling McCarthy a "prospect"?? Am I the only one who watched the games he started? How about an 8 strikeout dominating performance? Or maybe shutting down Boston on Labor day??

I just don't understand why anyone would want to trade a legit #3 and potential staff ace that the Sox would control for six seasons - even for Carl Crawford. I just don't get it. Maybe someone can make a case otherwise and I'll agree with trading McCarthy....

Agreed, how quickly people forget that pitching > than all.

With regards to CC, the rays need to move Upton to LF where CC currently resides, If Upton had started the season at 3B he would've finished with close 43+ errors, thats not remotely acceptable, hes atletic and like so many other 3B he will wind up in LF. So the rays will be looking for pitching and a 3B prospect we happen to have both.

They need another front line starter to go along with Kazmir but they have a ton of talent that will be ML ready by '08 when they truly start pushing for the east.

I assume its going to take 2 A prospects and a B, so kiss Fields good bye along with Broadway and whomever we get when we deal jose/mb/garcia.

Fields retains his full value at 3B and would push Upton to LF.

The rays are in great shape for the future its hard to look at the fact that they've had 90+ loosing seasons for their whole existance but with Kansas City sweeping Detroit they now have the posseison of the #1 pick for the '07 draft that is supposed to be better than the '03 draft and the best in the last 15 years.

With that pick they will most likely take LHP David Price Most consider the top prospect overall to be left-handed pitcher David Price from Vanderbilt. He was named Baseball America's player of the summer for his amazing performance pitching for Team USA. That marked his second tour with Team USA, and he has two very good seasons at Vandy under his belt as well. He's a prototypical staff ace, with a 6'6" projectable frame and a very impressive and complete arsenal. Brewerfan.net (http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewArticle.do?articleId=249)

From what i've read from some people Price can get it up to 96, has a slider similar to johnson and is developing a change.

By '08 the rays will be ready to contend for the AL east and WC.

SP - Kazmir(LHP), Price(LHP), whoever they get for CC, Jacob McGee(LHP), Jeff Niemann/Wade Davis

and their position players are incredibly talented too.
OF: Upton L, Baldelli C, Young R
MI : Longoria SS, Cantu 2B
CI :Josh Fields 3B(provided we deal), Bankston 1B
C : Navarro

Beautox
10-04-2006, 02:47 AM
Like I said in an earlier post, this team has a relatively small window to win with the players we have now.

I'd hate to see us not win the WS again with the team constructed the way it is now because we didn't go out and get the players we need to win now. (Crawford would help us now and in the future.)

What's more important? Winning with a strong club now and getting the pieces we need to win the WS, or worrying about what the club might look like in 2010?

I'm a little greedy now. I want to see another World Champion NOW and not worry about what the starting rotation is going to look like from 2010-2015.

There's going to be another downturn for this team in the future. Every team has them. Instead of worrying about that we should focus on winning it all while we still have the chance.

Don't be foolish, im glad KW is the GM and not you. The Central is and will continue to be the best division in baseball for the next 6-10 years if not longer.

Kansas City has baseball minded people running things now that have complete control of baseball operations. The Glass family has said they will put forth the money to put a winning product on the field. As seen by the makeover they're doing to the stadium, and the fact they spent more money on their top draft choices and FAs this past year.

Detroit is finally seeing the fruition of all those loosing seasons(Verlander, Zumaya and Granderson; alot more on the way too) and Michael Ilitch has always been willing to spend money, and they've got Leyland running the show now, they will only continue to get better.

Cleveland, if they get some semblance of pitching next year and a decent BP they will be in the thick of it, they're young and incredibly talented and they too have more coming, just look at Garko in his brief stint at the ML level he has already garnered the title "sox killer", they also have Sowers and Carmona to go along with CC and even more on the way.

Twins, nothing needs to be said about them, respect them, because even when you think they're spent, they rarely are.

We already have the ring, its a disappointment we didn't make the post season this year but lets not give up the future (McCarthy, Anderson, Sweeney) for a win now philosophy thats something the cubs would/have done. I'd rather be competitive for the next 3-5 years than give away what little our farm has to offer.

Beautox
10-04-2006, 03:07 AM
Here's all the comparison you need:
Numbers mean jack **** when comparing these guys. If you want to compare Brandon to someone else, pick a similar pitcher. Santana doesn't count.

I'm sorry but stats as a whole do matter. There comes a time when "stuff" takes a back seat to results go ask someone on our 40 man roster that goes by the name of Edwardo Sierra, he has great "stuff" but can't produce to save his life as seem by his 5.65ERA at AA. Or former reds first round draft pick Ryan Wagner who has a 80 on the scale for his slider but can't produce at the ML level.

Then go ask 29 other GMs in baseball sans KW about MB who has pedestrian "stuff", but outside of this year has been amazing and the owner of a career 3.83ERA and has been the definition of a quality start and an ace.

Stuff isn't the alpha and omega to pitching, maybe to "throwing" but not pitching.

McCarthy led the IL in SOs last year(even with stops in Chicago) who cares if his fast ball is straight as an arrow, he locates its incredibly well, and his change and curve work off it, and both of those pitches when on are + pitches when he has a feel for them. McCarthys floor is a #3, he has the potential to be a staff ace, even if his fastball only sits between 91-94. Through out his career as a starter McCarthy has produced. I wouldn't give him up for CC. Hes cheap, young, durable, and talented, and he made his pro debut at age 22.

Deacon24
10-04-2006, 04:25 PM
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/04/Rays/Rays__Pieces_in_place.shtml


Confirms what was mentioned a few posts up - Rays manager Joe Maddon pondering about what to do with B.J. Upton. If they do go through with moving him to LF, I would have no problem with Fields, Vazquez and Broadway for Crawford...provided we didn't have to pay any of Javy's contract...

veeter
10-04-2006, 04:32 PM
I'd give up McCarthy.I would too. You know why? Because of one Charles Haeger. I think he's going to be very, very good.

Flight #24
10-04-2006, 04:35 PM
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/04/Rays/Rays__Pieces_in_place.shtml


Confirms what was mentioned a few posts up - Rays manager Joe Maddon pondering about what to do with B.J. Upton. If they do go through with moving him to LF, I would have no problem with Fields, Vazquez and Broadway for Crawford...provided we didn't have to pay any of Javy's contract...

make it Sweeney, Vazquez, & Broadway and it's a deal. a veteran starter under control at a reasonable price through '08, a young solid middle of the rotation guy, and a good OF. Fields is IMO gonna be a star, got to hang on to him, especially if there are questions about Crede's back.

Sox-o-matic
10-04-2006, 06:01 PM
I'm sorry but stats as a whole do matter. There comes a time when "stuff" takes a back seat to results go ask someone on our 40 man roster that goes by the name of Edwardo Sierra, he has great "stuff" but can't produce to save his life as seem by his 5.65ERA at AA. Or former reds first round draft pick Ryan Wagner who has a 80 on the scale for his slider but can't produce at the ML level.

I said that you can't compare major league stats with two pitchers barely in their twenties when they are polar opposites, but you seem to believe otherwise. Go ahead and say that Brandon McCarthy is a better pitcher than Liriano or Santana all you want. The fact is he is not even close to being in the same league as either of those pitchers.

Ryan Wganer is 3-3 with a 4.70 ERA for Washington. That's not exactly the worst set of numbers in baseball. And Eduardo Sierra? So he's 24 and in AA, so what? Pitchers can have good years and bad ones too, even in the minors.

The point is, when you come across an arm like Liriano, or anyone with that kind of stuff, you don't say something stupid like "oh he's bad because he had a 5.xx ERA in Double A" or "McCarthy is better because his ERA was 1.xx lower" and walk away. I guarantee that if last year KW had been offered McCarthy for Liriano, he would have done that deal laughing all the way to the bank.

Then go ask 29 other GMs in baseball sans KW about MB who has pedestrian "stuff", but outside of this year has been amazing and the owner of a career 3.83ERA and has been the definition of a quality start and an ace.

We're not talking about the same thing at all here. There is a difference between a pitcher with proven track record and a history of winning (Buehrle) and a pitcher who, even though hyped up regularly on a message board, has yet to accomplish anything significant at the big league level (McCarthy).

Stuff isn't the alpha and omega to pitching, maybe to "throwing" but not pitching.

No it's not. But it is all the difference between two young starting pitchers who both have command of the strike zone.

McCarthy led the IL in SOs last year(even with stops in Chicago) who cares if his fast ball is straight as an arrow, he locates its incredibly well, and his change and curve work off it, and both of those pitches when on are + pitches when he has a feel for them. McCarthys floor is a #3, he has the potential to be a staff ace, even if his fastball only sits between 91-94. Through out his career as a starter McCarthy has produced. I wouldn't give him up for CC. Hes cheap, young, durable, and talented, and he made his pro debut at age 22.

Brandon's no movement fastball becomes a liability when he can't locate his curve and for whatever reason decides against using his change. You can make all the excuses you want (he's a rookie, doesn't have a lot of experience, not suited to a relief role, was tipping his pitches, had a bad day, etc.) but so far in his short career he has had more than a few outings where his fastball has become a liability for the reasons mentioned.

Brandon has produced in the minors and on occasion in the big leagues. There is nothing saying he won't turn into a good pitcher, just like there is nothing saying that he's better or more valuable than someone roughly his age with 10X better stuff.

You wouldn't trade him for Sabathia? Why not? Sabathia not only has this better stuff that we've been talking about, but he's already gotten there in his career. CC is finally at that stage where he is a safe bet as a staff ace while Brandon only has potential to one day get there.

Craig Grebeck
10-04-2006, 06:36 PM
Why in the hell would anyone want to trade Vazquez after watching him for the last two months of the season? He's been a great pitcher, and we can't just give up on him because he a bad summer.

You don't give up one of the best prospects in baseball for nothing.

We're much, much, much better off dealing Tracey to the Brewers for Brady Clark. Then move Freddy, hopefully to the Reds for Freel, if they don't bite deal him to anyone for prospects, basically a salary dump.

CC will cost waaaaay too much, and we can't give up our cheapest starter for him.

caulfield12
10-04-2006, 07:02 PM
'Nuff Said. Crawford is a ballplayer who has already proven himself in the league, is still young, can hit AND steal some bases, and has a bargain of a contract. Look at the bold and underlined sentence.

We still don't know exactly what we're getting from McCarthy. We know what we would get from Crawford for years to come.


The reason KW wants to keep McCarthy is precisely that. He COULD be a 1 or 2 and be cheap and price-controlled for five seasons.

Crawford is affordable, but certainly not CHEAP, like McCarthy.

We need to get younger, but who do you want starting in 08 after Garland? Haeger? Broadway?

Are the odds better that McCarthy will be a legit #3 next year or that Mark Buehrle and/or Contreras will be a legit #1/2? We don't know.

We do know that we won the WS mostly due to our starting pitching, not due to our offense. Crawford is not a significant upgrade in terms of OBP. He's a very good young player, but I wouldn't call him a superstar...he's not even as good as Vernon Wells.

caulfield12
10-04-2006, 07:03 PM
Why in the hell would anyone want to trade Vazquez after watching him for the last two months of the season? He's been a great pitcher, and we can't just give up on him because he a bad summer.

You don't give up one of the best prospects in baseball for nothing.

We're much, much, much better off dealing Tracey to the Brewers for Brady Clark. Then move Freddy, hopefully to the Reds for Freel, if they don't bite deal him to anyone for prospects, basically a salary dump.

CC will cost waaaaay too much, and we can't give up our cheapest starter for him.

I think it might take a little more than Tracey. Clark is cheaper and was a starter for Milwaukee, unlike Cintron in Arizona (bench player).

Thome25
10-04-2006, 07:39 PM
Why is everyone automatically assuming that we'll have to overpay to get Crawford?

I'm not saying TB is going to just give him away but here is an example:

Carlos Lee has better offensive numbers than Crawford. Did the Brewers have to overpay to get him from the Sox? NO

This season Carlos Lee still had better offensive numbers than Crawford. Did Texas have to overpay to get him? I'd have to say NO.

With the right package the Sox can pry Crawford away from the Devil Rays. And they won't have to give up the entire farm either. BOOK IT.

caulfield12
10-04-2006, 07:43 PM
Why is everyone automatically assuming that we'll have to overpay to get Crawford?

I'm not saying TB is going to just give him away but here is an example:

Carlos Lee has better offensive numbers than Crawford. Did the Brewers have to overpay to get him from the Sox? NO

This season Carlos Lee still had better offensive numbers than Crawford. Did Texas have to overpay to get him? I'd have to say NO.

With the right package the Sox can pry Crawford away from the Devil Rays. And they won't have to give up the entire farm either. BOOK IT.


Totally different situations.

Lee was about to enter into the final year of his White Sox contract and was going to be making $8.5 or $9.5 million.

Crawford's younger, a much better outfielder, and the White Sox would have control over him for a longer period of time.

Lee was a one-dimensional, slugging outfielder with limited range and lousy arm. Crawford is a much better defender and would also add speed to the line-up. He's probably the "franchise" player for TB right now, moreso than Baldelli...and Young isn't proven yet. Plus Delmon has some character issues (and guilt by association with his older brother), Crawford, to our knowledge, does not. Remember, they have the Jamie Dukes and Josh Hamilton stuff as well down there.

Lee was, at best, the 3rd or 4th best player on the White Sox at that time, behind Thomas, Konerko and Magglio.

Thome25
10-04-2006, 08:03 PM
Totally different situations.

Lee was about to enter into the final year of his White Sox contract and was going to be making $8.5 or $9.5 million.

Crawford's younger, a much better outfielder, and the White Sox would have control over him for a longer period of time.

Lee was a one-dimensional, slugging outfielder with limited range and lousy arm. Crawford is a much better defender and would also add speed to the line-up. He's probably the "franchise" player for TB right now, moreso than Baldelli...and Young isn't proven yet. Plus Delmon has some character issues (and guilt by association with his older brother), Crawford, to our knowledge, does not. Remember, they have the Jamie Dukes and Josh Hamilton stuff as well down there.

Lee was, at best, the 3rd or 4th best player on the White Sox at that time, behind Thomas, Konerko and Magglio.

What I'm trying to point out is that the market isn't that hot on outfielders right now.

Pitching is what everyone wants. Pitching is what the White Sox have.

KW and the Sox are the ones int the catbird seat when it comes to the trade market this offseason.

The White Sox are the ones that have what everyone else wants. THEY are the ones that dictate the trades with other teams NOT the other way around.

The Sox won't be knocking TB's or any other teams doors down looking for a trade. It'll be the other way around. We control the market with the hottest commodity around. PITCHING.

It's going to be a fun offseason.

Flight #24
10-04-2006, 08:12 PM
I said that you can't compare major league stats with two pitchers barely in their twenties when they are polar opposites, but you seem to believe otherwise. Go ahead and say that Brandon McCarthy is a better pitcher than Liriano or Santana all you want. The fact is he is not even close to being in the same league as either of those pitchers.


The point is that you don't know from his current major league stats that he won't be an extremely good starter. Santana in his early years was far from a sure thing. Heck - he was a rule5 pickup by the Twins from the Astros, so it's not like people were saying "he's got this electric fastball with natural movement and command of the strike zone".

McCarthy has pitched extremely well in the minors. When he's started, the role he's most comfortable with, he's shown that he can pitch extremely well in the majors. When he relieved, a role that he's unfamiliar with, he's struggled a bit. That means very little regarding his long-term potential as a starter.

caulfield12
10-04-2006, 09:01 PM
What I'm trying to point out is that the market isn't that hot on outfielders right now.

Pitching is what everyone wants. Pitching is what the White Sox have.

KW and the Sox are the ones int the catbird seat when it comes to the trade market this offseason.

The White Sox are the ones that have what everyone else wants. THEY are the ones that dictate the trades with other teams NOT the other way around.

The Sox won't be knocking TB's or any other teams doors down looking for a trade. It'll be the other way around. We control the market with the hottest commodity around. PITCHING.

It's going to be a fun offseason.


Yeah, but Garcia or Vazquez are pitchers that a competitive, playoff-worthy team adds to take that final step to put them over the top.

They're not the franchise pitcher type anymore.

There are 8-10 teams that will be interested in either, but TB isn't one of them. It doesn't make sense from a financial standpoint either, unless we pay 1/3rd of the the salaries.

For TB, it's either McCarthy or Broadway.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-05-2006, 09:02 AM
The only way a trade of Crawford to the Sox would materialize is in a three-way trade where the third team wants a veteran pitcher (Vazquez or Garcia), with the Sox maybe throwing in a AA prospect to spice up the deal. Otherwise, forget it.

The Sox are not going to give away McMarthy, Heager, Broadway, etc. The Sox had plenty of hitting in 2006. Their failure was in pitching.

caulfield12
10-05-2006, 09:04 AM
The only way a trade of Crawford to the Sox would materialize is in a three-way trade where the third team wants a veteran pitcher (Vazquez or Garcia), with the Sox maybe throwing in a AA prospect to spice up the deal. Otherwise, forget it.

The Sox are not going to give away McMarthy, Heager, Broadway, etc. The Sox had plenty of hitting in 2006. Their failure was in pitching.

I'm sure they would give up Haeger and Broadway for Crawford and not even bat an eye.

Thome25
10-05-2006, 09:12 AM
The only way a trade of Crawford to the Sox would materialize is in a three-way trade where the third team wants a veteran pitcher (Vazquez or Garcia), with the Sox maybe throwing in a AA prospect to spice up the deal. Otherwise, forget it.

The Sox are not going to give away McMarthy, Heager, Broadway, etc. The Sox had plenty of hitting in 2006. Their failure was in pitching.

The White Sox had plenty of hitting in 2006 but what they lacked was situational hitting, consistent hitting and patience at the plate.

They were also missing a sparkplug at the top of the order. While I love Podsednik and his contributions to the 2005 World Series, he hasn't been the same player since the first half of 2005.

I believe a player like Crawford, Dave Roberts, Ryan Freel, or even Juan Pierre would provide that spark. (I honestly believe that Pierre's lack of patience at the plate can be fixed and was probably the effect of being a Cub and trying to do too much at the plate.)

I could see the Sox dealing a Broadway and/or Charlie Haegar for Crawford.

TB said it is looking for a top tier starter for Crawford. That doesn't mean that starter has to be ready to pitch in 2007. They might take prospects who are a year or two away.

SoxxoS
10-05-2006, 09:49 AM
For those knocking McCarthy b/c of his struggles in relief I have two words for you-

ERIC GAGNE

The guy was an awful starter...and we all know what kind of reliever he is/was. Same arm. Same ugly facial hair and glasses. Same big head. WAY different numbers. It's just a different mentality.

INSox56
10-05-2006, 09:52 AM
When comparing or looking at "stuff" and talking about Brandon vs Liriano...you have to remember that a ton of pitchers' stuff isn't with magic arms. To really have nasty pitches, it's rare to not have to torque the crap out of your arm to GET those nasty pitches. I honestly am wary about the "future of baseball: Liriano", he's so good because of that slider....and he throws it so much that he's screwing up his arm. I wouldn't be surprised to either 1) see him throw less sliders and be less effective or 2) be injured AGAIN on the DL. My point being that stuff doesn't dictate how well a pitcher will be in teh long term. Brandon has fluid mechanics and good stuff to show for it anyway in his curve. I think he'll be better overall in his career than a hard throwing, possibly injury prone nasty pitcher like Liriano. Remember Santana DOES have a good slider....but his key pitch is his change.

caulfield12
10-05-2006, 09:59 AM
When comparing or looking at "stuff" and talking about Brandon vs Liriano...you have to remember that a ton of pitchers' stuff isn't with magic arms. To really have nasty pitches, it's rare to not have to torque the crap out of your arm to GET those nasty pitches. I honestly am wary about the "future of baseball: Liriano", he's so good because of that slider....and he throws it so much that he's screwing up his arm. I wouldn't be surprised to either 1) see him throw less sliders and be less effective or 2) be injured AGAIN on the DL. My point being that stuff doesn't dictate how well a pitcher will be in teh long term. Brandon has fluid mechanics and good stuff to show for it anyway in his curve. I think he'll be better overall in his career than a hard throwing, possibly injury prone nasty pitcher like Liriano. Remember Santana DOES have a good slider....but his key pitch is his change.

I don't know, maybe it's impossible to be as smooth as Vazquez or Thornton, but McCarthy doesn't have GREAT mechanics either. I would hardly call him fluid...he's kind of herky-jerky in his throwing motion. I am not predicting arm/elbow/shoulder troubles, but hopefully he'll continue to add strength and stamina without losing flexibility and velocity. I don't think if McCarthy gains 25 pounds he's automatically going to throw 95 or 96...

Another pitcher with a thin frame never developed as a starter because of him frame, that was Juan Cruz. Although Cruz was often compared to Pedro Martinez, not Black Jack McDowell.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-05-2006, 11:26 AM
I'm sure they would give up Haeger and Broadway for Crawford and not even bat an eye.

Haeger and Broadway would not be enough to acquire Crawford.

ChiSoxLifer
10-05-2006, 11:31 AM
For those knocking McCarthy b/c of his struggles in relief I have two words for you-

ERIC GAGNE

The guy was an awful starter...and we all know what kind of reliever he is/was. Same arm. Same ugly facial hair and glasses. Same big head. WAY different numbers. It's just a different mentality.

Preceding Erig Gagne, I would go with Dennis Eckersley.

Thome25
10-05-2006, 11:42 AM
For those knocking McCarthy b/c of his struggles in relief I have two words for you-

ERIC GAGNE

The guy was an awful starter...and we all know what kind of reliever he is/was. Same arm. Same ugly facial hair and glasses. Same big head. WAY different numbers. It's just a different mentality.

Preceding Erig Gagne, I would go with Dennis Eckersley.

Yeah it has worked when a guy has sucked at being a starter and then was awesome as a relief pitcher.

But, I think it's apples and oranges because I can't remember a guy being a sucky reliever and then going on to be an awesome starter.

I could be wrong though so if anyone can name any off the top of their heads please let me know.

Flight #24
10-05-2006, 11:47 AM
Yeah it has worked when a guy has sucked at being a starter and then was awesome as a relief pitcher.

But, I think it's apples and oranges because I can't remember a guy being a sucky reliever and then going on to be an awesome starter.

I could be wrong though so if anyone can name any off the top of their heads please let me know.

See the stats I posted earlier about Johan Santana in his first 2 years a reliever.

IMO it's not as simple as "failed reliever turned starter". It's more "rookie going through some standard rookie struggles" combined with "takes some time to adjust to new role".

Both of those are fairly well-established phenomena. It's fine to say "just get the guy in front of you out", but in practice it's not that simple. McCarthy happened to get a double dose of this and IMO with him it became more mental than anything, judging by his comments on the situation.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-05-2006, 12:54 PM
The White Sox had plenty of hitting in 2006 but what they lacked was situational hitting, consistent hitting and patience at the plate.

The Sox were eighth in ERA as a staff in 2006. They need better pitching from their starters, much better pitching from the bullpen, and some young arms to replace several of poor starters of this year. The Sox scored plenty of runs. This year, though, they had few wins of 1-0 and 2-1 like last year. It's pitching, pitching, pitching. Give me that, then get me some speed and defense.

SoxSpeed22
10-05-2006, 01:38 PM
The Sox scored plenty of runs. This year, though, they had few wins of 1-0 and 2-1 like last year. It's pitching, pitching, pitching. Give me that, then get me some speed and defense.Baseball is the 'when' sport. How many times this year, did they go through stretches where they just couldn't score when getting the pitching? More importantly, how many times did a bum with a 5.86 ERA make them look stupid over 8 innings? Consistency is necessary.

Craig Grebeck
10-05-2006, 01:53 PM
The White Sox had plenty of hitting in 2006 but what they lacked was situational hitting, consistent hitting and patience at the plate.

They were also missing a sparkplug at the top of the order. While I love Podsednik and his contributions to the 2005 World Series, he hasn't been the same player since the first half of 2005.

I believe a player like Crawford, Dave Roberts, Ryan Freel, or even Juan Pierre would provide that spark. (I honestly believe that Pierre's lack of patience at the plate can be fixed and was probably the effect of being a Cub and trying to do too much at the plate.)

I could see the Sox dealing a Broadway and/or Charlie Haegar for Crawford.

TB said it is looking for a top tier starter for Crawford. That doesn't mean that starter has to be ready to pitch in 2007. They might take prospects who are a year or two away.
Crawford brings no patience to the table. If KW acquires him, he'll bat 2nd or 6th.

How can you fix Pierre's lack of patience? He sucks whether he's in New York or Chicago.

HotelWhiteSox
10-05-2006, 02:30 PM
I wouldn't do it with McCarthy. Offense wasn't the problem in 06. Yeah, Podsednik sucked, but the middle of the order was also ten times better than the middle of the order in 05 so Podsednik didn't have to be relied upon as much. It was the pitching that went from tops in the league to the bottom third. Podsednik can be replaced but I don't think it has to be top priority or come at the expense of what will help you win games and championships

HotelWhiteSox
10-05-2006, 02:34 PM
Yeah it has worked when a guy has sucked at being a starter and then was awesome as a relief pitcher.

But, I think it's apples and oranges because I can't remember a guy being a sucky reliever and then going on to be an awesome starter.

I could be wrong though so if anyone can name any off the top of their heads please let me know.

Off the top of my head I think of Derek Lowe, a little iffy here and there, maybe not awesome, but pretty good numbers since starting

Tekijawa
10-05-2006, 03:06 PM
Yeah it has worked when a guy has sucked at being a starter and then was awesome as a relief pitcher.

But, I think it's apples and oranges because I can't remember a guy being a sucky reliever and then going on to be an awesome starter.

I could be wrong though so if anyone can name any off the top of their heads please let me know.

Buehrle coming out of the Pen his rookie year and McCarthy this year have some very simmilar numbers.

KyWhiSoxFan
10-05-2006, 03:12 PM
Baseball is the 'when' sport. How many times this year, did they go through stretches where they just couldn't score when getting the pitching? More importantly, how many times did a bum with a 5.86 ERA make them look stupid over 8 innings? Consistency is necessary.

Yes, consistency is necessary, but the consistency must come in pitching first and foremost. Get consistent pitching every day -- which the Sox did not in 2006 -- and you win more than your fair share. A bum with a 5.86 can make you look bad, but if you get the pitching you win that game 2-1, not lose 6-2.

soxinem1
10-05-2006, 07:33 PM
http://www.pinellas-news.com/issue/0035_08_02_2002/photos/Carl-Crawford-001.jpg

'As much as I'd like to, I am not coming to Chicago until the D-rays first trip there in 2007.'

TomBradley72
10-05-2006, 10:19 PM
I'd give up McCarthy.

:yup:

Thome25
10-06-2006, 09:03 AM
Crawford brings no patience to the table. If KW acquires him, he'll bat 2nd or 6th.

How can you fix Pierre's lack of patience? He sucks whether he's in New York or Chicago.

How hard would it be for him to start taking a few more pitches so he can draw some walks? I think it's a fixable situation.

Especially since Ozzie knows him and could work with him on it.

PorkChopExpress
10-06-2006, 09:40 AM
How hard would it be for him to start taking a few more pitches so he can draw some walks? I think it's a fixable situation.

Especially since Ozzie knows him and could work with him on it.

Because Ozzie knew how to take walks when he was playing. :cool: Ozzie never had more than 26 BB in a season. But I get where you are coming from. I think discipline at the plate can be improved with work, and if Pierre wants to improve.

Thome25
10-06-2006, 10:08 AM
Because Ozzie knew how to take walks when he was playing. :cool: Ozzie never had more than 26 BB in a season. But I get where you are coming from. I think discipline at the plate can be improved with work, and if Pierre wants to improve.

I knew someone would post that. I set myself up for that.

Just because Ozzie swung at everything and couldn't draw a walk to save his life doesn't mean as a manager he wouldn't talk to his potential leadoff man about taking more walks.

Britt Burns
10-06-2006, 10:45 AM
What is the over/under on the number of Carl Crawford threads we will see this off season? Whatever it is, I'm taking the over.

Tampa Bay wanted something like McCarthy and Anderson or Sweeney for Aubrey Huff in 2005...what do you think it would take to get Crawford off of their hands? Too much by a mile. I'd love to see him in center just as much as anyone, but it ain't gonna happen...

socko82
10-06-2006, 12:07 PM
Tampa Bay wanted something like McCarthy and Anderson or Sweeney for Aubrey Huff in 2005...what do you think it would take to get Crawford off of their hands? Too much by a mile. I'd love to see him in center just as much as anyone, but it ain't gonna happen...

Different GM.......the GM in 2005 had a reputation for never making any deals because of his outragious demands like this. Their new GM has made several deals this year and been much more realistic in his requests.

Flight #24
10-06-2006, 12:19 PM
What is the over/under on the number of Carl Crawford threads we will see this off season? Whatever it is, I'm taking the over.

Tampa Bay wanted something like McCarthy and Anderson or Sweeney for Aubrey Huff in 2005...what do you think it would take to get Crawford off of their hands? Too much by a mile. I'd love to see him in center just as much as anyone, but it ain't gonna happen...

As noted, that was a different GM. The current GM just traded Huff+cash for 2 middling prospects from the Astros. Although he did get a pretty good prospect from the Dodgers for Julio Lugo (FA-to-be).

Regardless, he seems a lot more reasonable than his predecessor.

Britt Burns
10-06-2006, 01:57 PM
Different GM.......the GM in 2005 had a reputation for never making any deals because of his outragious demands like this. Their new GM has made several deals this year and been much more realistic in his requests.

Yup, forgot about that. I still think Crawford is going to be a very pricey acquisition.