PDA

View Full Version : Must KW trade away a starter?


Frater Perdurabo
11-30-2006, 08:02 AM
If there's a trade to be made that nets the Sox a leadoff hitter who can play OF or SS and bullpen help, that significantly improves the Sox, then by all means go for it. But none of the rumored deals really excite me. I hope they don't excite KW, either.

McCarthy wasn't exactly light-out in 2006. Why not start him in Charlotte and go into 2007 with the same five experienced and well-rested starters?

This way, if they all perform well, KW has a starter to deal in June or July to an NL team to bolster the pen or get a bopper, or to cover up for an unexpected injury.

Or, if a starter falters or gets hurt, McCarthy can step in immediately.

barney27
11-30-2006, 08:47 AM
If there's a trade to be made that nets the Sox a leadoff hitter who can play OF or SS and bullpen help, that significantly improves the Sox, then by all means go for it. But none of the rumored deals really excite me. I hope they don't excite KW, either.

McCarthy wasn't exactly light-out in 2006. Why not start him in Charlotte and go into 2007 with the same five experienced and well-rested starters?

This way, if they all perform well, KW has a starter to deal in June or July to an NL team to bolster the pen or get a bopper, or to cover up for an unexpected injury.

Or, if a starter falters or gets hurt, McCarthy can step in immediately.
McCarthy is going to start next year, yet I agree with you that his performance left little to be desired. Odds are that one of our starters most likely Garcia will eventually be moved to help restock our depleted minor league system, and all these rumors are exactly that, rumors. But who knows KW always seems to have something up his sleeve.

esbrechtel
11-30-2006, 08:59 AM
i know this idea has been shot down but i would love to see a six man rotation...i think our rotation would have benefitted from this last year because they seemed over tired...if this is not an option, i wouldnt mind seeing vasquez in the bullpen (we arent paying him his entire salary) as our long man and deal him later....gange is also looking for somewhere to go? might not be a bad idea to look into that...

Steelrod
11-30-2006, 09:21 AM
No, but he will!

oeo
11-30-2006, 09:24 AM
McCarthy is going to start next year, yet I agree with you that his performance left little to be desired. Odds are that one of our starters most likely Garcia will eventually be moved to help restock our depleted minor league system, and all these rumors are exactly that, rumors. But who knows KW always seems to have something up his sleeve.

Kenny has already said that he does not have to trade anyone, and if the right deal does not come along, he won't make a trade. A surplus of starting pitchers is never bad...and it doesn't mean McCarthy can't be inserted into the rotation, to possibly give Contreras some time off...we're going to need him throughout the season.

So, no, he doesn't have to trade a starter, and I don't think he will unless he gets a good offer. I do think one will be traded because someone is going to get desperate for starting pitching (whether it be the Mets, Yankees, Rangers, etc.), and Kenny will get a deal that he can't pass up. But he, by no means, must trade someone.

barney27
11-30-2006, 09:31 AM
Kenny has already said that he does not have to trade anyone, and if the right deal does not come along, he won't make a trade. A surplus of starting pitchers is never bad...and it doesn't mean McCarthy can't be inserted into the rotation, to possibly give Contreras some time off...we're going to need him throughout the season.

So, no, he doesn't have to trade a starter, and I don't think he will unless he gets a good offer. I do think one will be traded because someone is going to get desperate for starting pitching (whether it be the Mets, Yankees, Rangers, etc.), and Kenny will get a deal that he can't pass up. But he, by no means, must trade someone.
I only said that the odds are that he will trade a starter never said he must. I just think that with teams needs to fill a spot in the rotation that KW will wait, see what develops, and deal one to help restock our minor leagues. As far as McCarthy starting I know he is going to be given beyond every opprotunity to earn a rotation spot or else they may have looked alittle deeper into trade possibilites for the playoff push last year. Kenny loves the guy and so does the organization, so regardless of last years mixed results he will be starting.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 09:35 AM
The Sox need bullpen help and they need to address the lack of production at the top and the bottom of the order. They're not going to be able to do that on the FA market, so trading is the only realistic avenue, and a starter is their highest trade value option. If KW wants to fix the holes, then trading a starter is probably going to be necessary.

oeo
11-30-2006, 09:44 AM
I only said that the odds are that he will trade a starter never said he must. I just think that with teams needs to fill a spot in the rotation that KW will wait, see what develops, and deal one to help restock our minor leagues. As far as McCarthy starting I know he is going to be given beyond every opprotunity to earn a rotation spot or else they may have looked alittle deeper into trade possibilites for the playoff push last year. Kenny loves the guy and so does the organization, so regardless of last years mixed results he will be starting.

I wasn't really responding to what you said exactly, I was just answering the question of the thread.

Jjav829
11-30-2006, 09:54 AM
The Sox need bullpen help and they need to address the lack of production at the top and the bottom of the order. They're not going to be able to do that on the FA market, so trading is the only realistic avenue, and a starter is their highest trade value option. If KW wants to fix the holes, then trading a starter is probably going to be necessary.

Agreed. I was just going to post the same thing until I read your post. One of our starters will be traded in time. But there's no reason for Kenny to rush. Once the free agent pitchers start to come off the market, the teams that were in on those pitchers but lost will come calling. And Kenny will be waiting with a couple pitchers who are signed at very reasonable prices. When you consider that Adam Eaton just got $8 million a year, Freddy Garcia at $10 million even for only one year, or even Javier Vazquez at $9.5 million for a year seems like a bargain.

It also makes sense for Kenny to make use of these bargaining chips now rather than waste the opportunity and watch them walk away in free agency. We have a capable started ready to step in. While McCarthy certainly wasn't dazzling last year, in 12 starts over 2 years he has a 4.12 ERA. He may not be much worse in 2007 than whoever we trade away.

caulfield12
11-30-2006, 10:20 AM
Agreed. I was just going to post the same thing until I read your post. One of our starters will be traded in time. But there's no reason for Kenny to rush. Once the free agent pitchers start to come off the market, the teams that were in on those pitchers but lost will come calling. And Kenny will be waiting with a couple pitchers who are signed at very reasonable prices. When you consider that Adam Eaton just got $8 million a year, Freddy Garcia at $10 million even for only one year, or even Javier Vazquez at $9.5 million for a year seems like a bargain.

It also makes sense for Kenny to make use of these bargaining chips now rather than waste the opportunity and watch them walk away in free agency. We have a capable started ready to step in. While McCarthy certainly wasn't dazzling last year, it 12 starts over 2 years he has a 4.12 ERA. He may not be much worse in 2007 than whoever we trade away.

Which would have been the best ERA, far and away, of any of our starters last season.

So nobody was dazzling last year, not even Garland, because a 4+ ERA simply cannot be called dazzling.

Frater Perdurabo
11-30-2006, 11:46 AM
Maybe I've been drinking too much silver and black kool aid, but...

Although I acknowledge that any team can be improved, I'm becoming more convinced that IF KW stood pat and just signed two solid FA relivers, the Sox still would be in a great position going into next season.

In 2006 Buehrle, Garcia, Garland and Contreras just had come off their shortest offseason ever, just after pitching a heavy load deep into late October. This year they will have come off a season having thrown less and will have had more offseason time to recover. Also, Vazquez pitched better in August and September and ought to be able to build on that success in 2007.

I think Anderson has the mental makeup not to let his disappointing season at the plate to carry over into 2007. I think he's going to apply what he's learned in his approach at the plate - enough to deserve a "promotion" to the #8 spot - and will continue to play great CF defense. I also think that the offseason rest will pay dividends for Pods and he could have a 2007 that's more like his 2005. The only wild card is Uribe, and although his plate discipline is terrible, he will have the most power potential of any #9 hitter.

I think the greatest return on investment would come from augmenting the bullpen via free agency.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 01:34 PM
Maybe I've been drinking too much silver and black kool aid, but...

Although I acknowledge that any team can be improved, I'm becoming more convinced that IF KW stood pat and just signed two solid FA relivers, the Sox still would be in a great position going into next season.

In 2006 Buehrle, Garcia, Garland and Contreras just had come off their shortest offseason ever, just after pitching a heavy load deep into late October. This year they will have come off a season having thrown less and will have had more offseason time to recover. Also, Vazquez pitched better in August and September and ought to be able to build on that success in 2007.

I think Anderson has the mental makeup not to let his disappointing season at the plate to carry over into 2007. I think he's going to apply what he's learned in his approach at the plate - enough to deserve a "promotion" to the #8 spot - and will continue to play great CF defense. I also think that the offseason rest will pay dividends for Pods and he could have a 2007 that's more like his 2005. The only wild card is Uribe, and although his plate discipline is terrible, he will have the most power potential of any #9 hitter.

I think the greatest return on investment would come from augmenting the bullpen via free agency.I don't think there's any doubt that if they brought back the exact same team from last year they'd have as good a chance as anyone. Lots of players had sub-par years and could be expected to rebound. But time doesn't stand still. They're all a year older and many key players are a year closer to free agency. Kenny has said over and over he's not going to make a move just to make a move. But if he gets an opportunity to make a move to improve the team, he'll take it. And I have no doubt such an opportunity will arise.

ondafarm
11-30-2006, 02:09 PM
I don't think there's any doubt that if they brought back the exact same team from last year they'd have as good a chance as anyone. Lots of players had sub-par years and could be expected to rebound. But time doesn't stand still. They're all a year older and many key players are a year closer to free agency. Kenny has said over and over he's not going to make a move just to make a move. But if he gets an opportunity to make a move to improve the team, he'll take it. And I have no doubt such an opportunity will arise.

With 29 other GMs all in need of something you've got an excess of (proven starting pitching), somebody has to make a stupid. Just make sure it is your stupid.

1917
11-30-2006, 02:16 PM
McCarthy will be a great starter. Yes he gave up some costly hits in relief in 2006, but relief and starting are apples and oranges....You give up a single in an inning as a starter, then the next 3 out, no harm....you give up a single in relief, it may cost you 3 runs depending on the situation.

guillen4life13
11-30-2006, 04:17 PM
I am starting to have a problem with the excuse that the pitchers were all fatigued from the postseason run. I frankly don't buy it. The postseason + WBC could have more meaning, but the postseason alone doesn't. As an athlete, you're expected to keep in shape.

If you have a "fatigue" problem a good 4-5 months (from the end of the series to the beginning of spring training), I see that as more of an indication of bad, injury causing mechanics, or poor conditioning during the offseason. Four months should be more than enough time for the body to recooperate if there isn't an injury. I understand that pitching is an incredibly taxing thing to do, but it's not like our starters were flame throwers in '05. They're finesse pitchers, and that's supposed to be better on the arm. Maybe the rest of the league figured out some things about them. After the performance those guys gave in the playoffs, the rest of the league must have scouted them a lot more heavily than any other year. Couple that with their loss of velocity, which is attributed to "fatigue," and then the performance drop off is almost guaranteed. I'm no pitching expert, mind you, but I think that the dropoff for many of those pitchers may have been due to either injuries that they weren't so forthcoming about, or straying from the mechanics that brought them success.

I just think that the Don Cooper, Ozzie, and Kenny (and I'm sure they're doing this), and we as fans should not just attribute the fall off to the pitchers' fatigue. Four months is a lot of time. Aaron Rowand will tell you that. Something else went wrong. I wish I knew what it/they could be.

MRM
11-30-2006, 05:12 PM
I am starting to have a problem with the excuse that the pitchers were all fatigued from the postseason run. I frankly don't buy it.

That's exactly right. Nothing but an excuse, and a poor one at that. 5 man rotations are a relatively recent phenomenon as are bullpen specialists. For most of Baseball history, teams used 4 man rotations and the starters had to pitch longer into the game. Pitching 300 innings in a season was the norm, these days if a guy throws 230 innings we complain about them being "over worked". Basically guys throw 6 or seven innings then have four or five days off. Also, if there was anything at all to the issue NO TEAM would allow their pitchers to play fall or winter ball.

The whole idea of Players being "too worn out" because they pitched in the post seasons is just silly. The White Sox starters pitched more innings than any other team in the AL last year so they can't have been too tired.

peeonwrigley
11-30-2006, 07:34 PM
Of course Kenny is going to say he doesn't *have* to trade a starter. And he doesn't have to, but I'd have to believe in his ideal world he ships out a starter as the key to a deal that would improve any or all of the bullpen/leadoff spot/short stop position.

Its about bargaining power - if teams know/sense he is eager to dump a particular pitcher, the value he can command for that pitcher decreases.

Additionally, I'd expect Kenny to act after some, if not all, of Schmidt, Zito, Meche, etc fall into place because teams will be more desperate then, and a "market" will have been established for the value of a front of the rotation starter.

The issues the Sox need to address are pretty clear and have been beaten to death on this site. Kenny knows them better than we do, but I think collectively this site is pretty spot on in its evaluation of the 2006 Sox.

CashMan
11-30-2006, 07:43 PM
That's exactly right. Nothing but an excuse, and a poor one at that. 5 man rotations are a relatively recent phenomenon as are bullpen specialists. For most of Baseball history, teams used 4 man rotations and the starters had to pitch longer into the game. Pitching 300 innings in a season was the norm, these days if a guy throws 230 innings we complain about them being "over worked". Basically guys throw 6 or seven innings then have four or five days off. Also, if there was anything at all to the issue NO TEAM would allow their pitchers to play fall or winter ball.

The whole idea of Players being "too worn out" because they pitched in the post seasons is just silly. The White Sox starters pitched more innings than any other team in the AL last year so they can't have been too tired.


So explain why Buehrle was 14-14 after he pitched the regular season then went to Japan and pitched the year before? Then explain why after him pitching in the Regular season and in the playoffs and had a bad year last year? Coincidence?

ondafarm
11-30-2006, 09:09 PM
I am starting to have a problem with the excuse that the pitchers were all fatigued from the postseason run. I frankly don't buy it. The postseason + WBC could have more meaning, but the postseason alone doesn't. As an athlete, you're expected to keep in shape.

If you have a "fatigue" problem a good 4-5 months (from the end of the series to the beginning of spring training), I see that as more of an indication of bad, injury causing mechanics, or poor conditioning during the offseason. Four months should be more than enough time for the body to recooperate if there isn't an injury. I understand that pitching is an incredibly taxing thing to do, but it's not like our starters were flame throwers in '05. They're finesse pitchers, and that's supposed to be better on the arm. Maybe the rest of the league figured out some things about them. After the performance those guys gave in the playoffs, the rest of the league must have scouted them a lot more heavily than any other year. Couple that with their loss of velocity, which is attributed to "fatigue," and then the performance drop off is almost guaranteed. I'm no pitching expert, mind you, but I think that the dropoff for many of those pitchers may have been due to either injuries that they weren't so forthcoming about, or straying from the mechanics that brought them success.

I just think that the Don Cooper, Ozzie, and Kenny (and I'm sure they're doing this), and we as fans should not just attribute the fall off to the pitchers' fatigue. Four months is a lot of time. Aaron Rowand will tell you that. Something else went wrong. I wish I knew what it/they could be.

No. I really think its fatigue. While not a pitching expert, I've been asked by a couple of teams at various levels about being a pitching coach.

The year after effect is well known. Here's an SI article on it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tom_verducci/11/28/pitchers/index.html

The 30 inning increase margin is only a little over three games or four starts. Considering that the Sox played 12 extra games with a four man rotation in the 2005 playoffs, this means very little increase was all that was needed to boost the pitching total for the starters that critical 30 innings.

Four months may be a lot of rest, but if you are used to five months and you're workload is higher than it has ever been before, then fatigue is a definite problem.

It's also why a) I'd pick against the Tigers winning the ALCD and b) I will pick the White Sox in 2007.

caulfield12
11-30-2006, 10:23 PM
No. I really think its fatigue. While not a pitching expert, I've been asked by a couple of teams at various levels about being a pitching coach.

The year after effect is well known. Here's an SI article on it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tom_verducci/11/28/pitchers/index.html

The 30 inning increase margin is only a little over three games or four starts. Considering that the Sox played 12 extra games with a four man rotation in the 2005 playoffs, this means very little increase was all that was needed to boost the pitching total for the starters that critical 30 innings.

Four months may be a lot of rest, but if you are used to five months and you're workload is higher than it has ever been before, then fatigue is a definite problem.

It's also why a) I'd pick against the Tigers winning the ALCD and b) I will pick the White Sox in 2007.

Would you still be picking them over MIN if Liriano was coming back 100% healthy in April?

SoxSpeed22
11-30-2006, 11:23 PM
Those three extra losses will sure affect the Twin starters.
Do realize that the leader of their pitching staff, Radke, is retiring, Liriano is most likely gone for '07 and a patch-work team catches up to you eventually.
With those hellish contracts being offered to mediocre, at best, starters. Because teams are desparate for pitching, they will surely overpay for one of our starters, McCarthy's time is now.

Ol' No. 2
11-30-2006, 11:28 PM
No. I really think its fatigue. While not a pitching expert, I've been asked by a couple of teams at various levels about being a pitching coach.

The year after effect is well known. Here's an SI article on it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tom_verducci/11/28/pitchers/index.html

The 30 inning increase margin is only a little over three games or four starts. Considering that the Sox played 12 extra games with a four man rotation in the 2005 playoffs, this means very little increase was all that was needed to boost the pitching total for the starters that critical 30 innings.

Four months may be a lot of rest, but if you are used to five months and you're workload is higher than it has ever been before, then fatigue is a definite problem.

It's also why a) I'd pick against the Tigers winning the ALCD and b) I will pick the White Sox in 2007.It's not just fatigue in the usual sense of the word. Pitching does violent things to a shoulder and elbow. There's a lot of damage that accumulates over the course of a season, and it takes time to heal. Cutting that healing time by a month makes a big difference.

guillen4life13
11-30-2006, 11:53 PM
No. I really think its fatigue. While not a pitching expert, I've been asked by a couple of teams at various levels about being a pitching coach.

The year after effect is well known. Here's an SI article on it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tom_verducci/11/28/pitchers/index.html

The 30 inning increase margin is only a little over three games or four starts. Considering that the Sox played 12 extra games with a four man rotation in the 2005 playoffs, this means very little increase was all that was needed to boost the pitching total for the starters that critical 30 innings.

Four months may be a lot of rest, but if you are used to five months and you're workload is higher than it has ever been before, then fatigue is a definite problem.

It's also why a) I'd pick against the Tigers winning the ALCD and b) I will pick the White Sox in 2007.

Knowing that both you and the writer know more than me on the topic, I'll go with you guys, but this brings one thing up:

Isn't this going to hurt Brandon McCarthy in 2008? What's his previous high in IP?

Ol' No. 2
12-01-2006, 12:01 AM
Knowing that both you and the writer know more than me on the topic, I'll go with you guys, but this brings one thing up:

Isn't this going to hurt Brandon McCarthy in 2008? What's his previous high in IP?Between AAA and the bigs he pitch 180+ innings in 2005.

ondafarm
12-01-2006, 12:09 AM
Knowing that both you and the writer know more than me on the topic, I'll go with you guys, but this brings one thing up:

Isn't this going to hurt Brandon McCarthy in 2008? What's his previous high in IP?

Well, he did 172.0 innings in 2004. I'd be thrilled if our #5 starter pitched just under 200 innings.

Ol' No. 2
12-01-2006, 12:14 AM
Well, he did 172.0 innings in 2004. I'd be thrilled if our #5 starter pitched just under 200 innings.McCarthy is going to have to build up his body some more. One of the reasons Kenny gave at the beginning 2006 for not putting him in the rotation was that he didn't think he could hold up to the 200+ innings that they were going to need.

ondafarm
12-01-2006, 08:55 AM
McCarthy is going to have to build up his body some more. One of the reasons Kenny gave at the beginning 2006 for not putting him in the rotation was that he didn't think he could hold up to the 200+ innings that they were going to need.

As the #5 starter, he will see some heavier duty innings than last year, when he spot started and generally received garbage innings.

TheVulture
12-01-2006, 11:48 AM
That's exactly right. Nothing but an excuse, and a poor one at that. 5 man rotations are a relatively recent phenomenon as are bullpen specialists. For most of Baseball history, teams used 4 man rotations and the starters had to pitch longer into the game. Pitching 300 innings in a season was the norm, these days if a guy throws 230 innings we complain about them being "over worked".

It was probably a little easier to pitch 300 innings when the mounds were 6" higher, the walls 50' deeper and the hitters weren't jacked up on roids.

Lip Man 1
12-01-2006, 12:01 PM
While I agree with and understand some of the comments that still doesn't explain the Yanks making the post season 11 straight years and the Braves 14 doesn't it?

Talk about additional innings adding up.

Lip

fquaye149
12-01-2006, 12:11 PM
While I agree with and understand some of the comments that still doesn't explain the Yanks making the post season 11 straight years and the Braves 14 doesn't it?

Talk about additional innings adding up.

Lip

Keep in mind that some of our pitchers pitched in the WBC too.

Lip Man 1
12-01-2006, 12:26 PM
Understood. I mentioned that early on in the season and there were those who strongly disagreed with it saying that if they weren't pitching in the moronic WBC they'd be pitching in spring training.

My reply was it's a lot different having to ease your way into the season on March 2nd as opposed to actually having to throw a breaking ball for a strike trying to get big hitters out in a 'menaingful' game.

Plus Garcia and Vazquez had to start training earlier and throwing more to be ready to throw actually breaking balls on March 2nd instead of just spotting a fastball and getting your rhythm back.

Lip

ondafarm
12-01-2006, 12:32 PM
. . . Plus Garcia and Vazquez had to start training earlier and throwing more to be ready to throw actually breaking balls on March 2nd instead of just spotting a fastball and getting your rhythm back.


But Garcia and Vazquez were the two guys I thought didn't have fatigue. If Buehrle and Contreras had played for USA and Cuban Exiles, then I might concede the point.

fquaye149
12-01-2006, 01:47 PM
But Garcia and Vazquez were the two guys I thought didn't have fatigue. If Buehrle and Contreras had played for USA and Cuban Exiles, then I might concede the point.

Garcia lost how many MPH on his fastball this year?

guillen4life13
12-01-2006, 02:20 PM
While I agree with and understand some of the comments that still doesn't explain the Yanks making the post season 11 straight years and the Braves 14 doesn't it?

Talk about additional innings adding up.

Lip

The Sox did win 90 games and still came 3rd in their division. Lots may have to do with the competition. But I do also wonder. You have a great point, and the Yankees had some amazing seasons during that stretch.