PDA

View Full Version : McCarthy won't pitch out of pen in 07


Pierzynski 12
12-01-2006, 01:36 PM
McCarthy (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061201&content_id=1748653&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws)
(http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061201&content_id=1748653&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws)

itsnotrequired
12-01-2006, 01:40 PM
Today is chock-full of news!

lakeviewsoxfan
12-01-2006, 01:43 PM
Today is chock-full of news!

Did Wednesday come 2 days late this week

QCIASOXFAN
12-01-2006, 02:19 PM
I'm shocked by this news!!

SouthSide_HitMen
12-01-2006, 02:44 PM
:supernana:


Hopefully Kenny can bring in some bullpen help in the meantime. This is great news for the development of McCarthy, IMO.

Perhaps Friday is the new Wednesday for this offseason.

Podsednik & McCarthy = Happy Friday!!!

CaptainBallz
12-01-2006, 02:56 PM
:supernana:



Perhaps Friday is the new Wednesday for this offseason.

Podsednik & McCarthy = Happy Friday!!!

Friday must be the day for "non-moves".

"No we won't have another option for Pods"
"No we won't be dealing MacCarthy"

I hope for MacCarthy's sake they don't go the Charlotte route with him. He sounds genuinely unthrilled about that prospect...

Palehose13
12-01-2006, 03:10 PM
:cleo

I see "Starting pitcher for SS or CF and a reliever" in the future.

soxfanreggie
12-01-2006, 03:18 PM
For once Miss Cleo may be right...

Kuzman
12-01-2006, 03:24 PM
Prior to the 2006 campaign, McCarthy had made 89 career appearances in the Majors, and 85 of those trips to the mound came as a starter.

Now that's some stellar reporting.

lakeviewsoxfan
12-01-2006, 03:30 PM
Friday must be the day for "non-moves".

"No we won't have another option for Pods"
"No we won't be dealing McCarthy"

I hope for McCarthy's sake they don't go the Charlotte route with him. He sounds genuinely unthrilled about that prospect...

Theres no A in McCarthy

TornLabrum
12-01-2006, 03:46 PM
Theres no A in McCarthy

So you're trying to tell me his name is McCrthy? :tongue:

mcfish
12-01-2006, 03:47 PM
Theres no A in McCarthyYeah there is. I bolded it for you. (If we're going to get picky, then get it right - "there is only one A in McCarthy. :D:)

StatManDu
12-01-2006, 03:54 PM
Fine with me. He's a starter anyway

CaptainBallz
12-01-2006, 08:43 PM
Theres no A in McCarthy

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PTGPOD/386410a~Businessman-Sitting-in-Corner-with-Dunce-Hat-Posters.jpg

Frontman
12-01-2006, 09:12 PM
"I'm not putting a gun to anyone's head."

BUT

"I'm better as a starter, and I'd rather be in the majors."

AKA

"Deal someone so I can be a starter for the Sox."

Meh. Here's to hoping he believes himself when he says he'll give 100% to whatever role they give him. Personally, I think he should either be the #5 starter, or come out of the pen. Sending him to Charlotte isn't going to give him additional major experience.

Front

Frater Perdurabo
12-01-2006, 09:26 PM
Sending him to Charlotte isn't going to give him additional major experience.

No, but it would get him stretched out to start IF (and only IF) KW trades one of the other starters for relief or SS/CF help. KW shouldn't make a deal just to make McCarthy happy, but only if it improves the team. If KW can't improve the team by trading another starter, the best thing for McCarthy and the Sox would be for him to start at Charlotte.

Domeshot17
12-01-2006, 11:25 PM
Its a shame money plays so much role in how a team handle's its unit. The rotation should be the best 5 starters on the team, Brandon is obviously one of those 5 (and argueably the 3rd or 4th best on the team). However, because he does not yet make 9-12 million a season, he can be the odd man out.

I really hope they aren't dumb enough to send him back to triple A. Brandon's been getting the shaft for a while now.

MRM
12-01-2006, 11:33 PM
No, but it would get him stretched out to start IF (and only IF) KW trades one of the other starters for relief or SS/CF help. KW shouldn't make a deal just to make McCarthy happy, but only if it improves the team. If KW can't improve the team by trading another starter, the best thing for McCarthy and the Sox would be for him to start at Charlotte.

No way. Even if for some insane reason KW can't find a trade to his liking for a starter, there is no way you send McCarthy down at this point.

1) You sold the guy on being a relief pitcher last year by promising he'd be a starter this year. If you instead send him back to the minors you might lose him forever. I'd much sooner trade him than do that to him.

2) You've GOT to find out once and for all if he's the real deal at the big league level. Buehrle and Garcia are both free agents after this upcoming season. I don't see either being extended based on last years performance and the percieved value of starting pitching these days. The Sox biggest assest could quickly turn into their biggest problem after next season if McCarthy isn't what we all hope he is. Can't wait until '08 to find out. That's something that has to be found out while the depth is still great.

MRM
12-01-2006, 11:42 PM
Its a shame money plays so much role in how a team handle's its unit. The rotation should be the best 5 starters on the team, Brandon is obviously one of those 5 (and argueably the 3rd or 4th best on the team). However, because he does not yet make 9-12 million a season, he can be the odd man out.

I really hope they aren't dumb enough to send him back to triple A. Brandon's been getting the shaft for a while now.

I'm more curious in why you think Juan must go?

Defensively he's a top 5 SS in the A.L. Probably top 3. Prior to the ARod, Jeter, Garciapara (and later, Tejada) coming out party, SS was strictly a defensive position (OK, Ripken, but he was a fluke of nature). Unless you are bringing in an ARod or Tejada to replace him, why must he go? He's basically Ozzie Guillen with more power at the position, now. Does EVERY position have to be an offensive force to make people happy? I agree we need to see more offensive production from the CF position, but SS? C'mon. I'll take Juans career averages (and potential) as long as he's playing at the gold glove caliber level we've seen from him.

HomeFish
12-01-2006, 11:53 PM
Prior to the ARod, Jeter, Garciapara (and later, Tejada) coming out party, SS was strictly a defensive position

Sure, and prior to 1818, Illinois wasn't a state. Does that mean we should send our Senators home from Washington?

Things change. SS is now an offensive position. That is reality, and reality should be embraced, not ignored.

That said, Uribe can be a fine offensive player, especially for somebody who bats that low in the order. I don't see him as a problem at the plate.

Ol' No. 2
12-02-2006, 12:01 AM
I'm more curious in why you think Juan must go?

Defensively he's a top 5 SS in the A.L. Probably top 3. Prior to the ARod, Jeter, Garciapara (and later, Tejada) coming out party, SS was strictly a defensive position (OK, Ripken, but he was a fluke of nature). Unless you are bringing in an ARod or Tejada to replace him, why must he go? He's basically Ozzie Guillen with more power at the position, now. Does EVERY position have to be an offensive force to make people happy? I agree we need to see more offensive production from the CF position, but SS? C'mon. I'll take Juans career averages (and potential) as long as he's playing at the gold glove caliber level we've seen from him.The problem isn't that Uribe isn't an offensive force. The problem is that he gives away at-bats by being stupid. Anderson's problem is the same, except in his case it wasn't being stupid, just inexperienced. I don't care if Uribe hits .250, but he needs better at bats.

MRM
12-02-2006, 12:08 AM
Its a shame money plays so much role in how a team handle's its unit. The rotation should be the best 5 starters on the team, Brandon is obviously one of those 5 (and argueably the 3rd or 4th best on the team). However, because he does not yet make 9-12 million a season, he can be the odd man out.

I really hope they aren't dumb enough to send him back to triple A. Brandon's been getting the shaft for a while now.

Money has ZERO role in how a team sets it's rotation. Of that I'm sure. You work your pitching staff in the best way to help your team at the time. There is NO WAY Ozzie, of all people, is going to fill out a roster based on what this or that player makes. You should know better than that with him. They ran out what they believed were the 5 best starters they had last year, and you really can't argue against that with any legitimacy.

Actually we don't have a clue about where McCarthy fits, yet. A handful of good starts, late in the year, does not a career make...Unless you are one of those ready to induct Tony Romo into the Pro Football hall of fame as well. They have a pretty similar sample size in their respective sports.

Is there even a team Brandon has more than 1 career start against? We simply don't know if he is for real or not. The front offices actions will tell us what they think (And I sure hope they know more about it than we do). I'm almost convinced they've been playing him up the last two years to be trade bait in a blockbuster, but expected a better performance from him in relief. Why get Vazquez last season if they thought Brandon was the real deal? And make no mistake, they gave up a LOT to get Javier. It's not like he fell into their laps dirt cheap. To me, that was an obvious sign the organization didn't think McCarthy was ready. No matter what us knee jerk fans thought.

That said, sending him back to the minors is a sure sign of giving up on him. I'd sure hope they'd trade him before doing that. Even if it meant the return was less than originally wanted. I think Brandon was being set up to be trade bait or an insurance policy all along. I still have no clue if he's worth a crap as a starter and would trade him in a heartbeat in the right deal. But, like you, I have no clue what the front office or coaching staff knows.

1951Campbell
12-02-2006, 12:11 AM
Look who's back! :D:

MRM
12-02-2006, 12:12 AM
Sure, and prior to 1818, Illinois wasn't a state. Does that mean we should send our Senators home from Washington?

Things change. SS is now an offensive position. That is reality, and reality should be embraced, not ignored.

That said, Uribe can be a fine offensive player, especially for somebody who bats that low in the order. I don't see him as a problem at the plate.

SS most certainly is NOT an offensive position. Other than a handful of guys, it's most definately a defense first position. And Uribe is quite good defensively.

MRM
12-02-2006, 12:38 AM
The problem isn't that Uribe isn't an offensive force. The problem is that he gives away at-bats by being stupid. Anderson's problem is the same, except in his case it wasn't being stupid, just inexperienced. I don't care if Uribe hits .250, but he needs better at bats.

Guys hit .250 and below BECAUSE they have bad abs at times. Guys who are consistent at the plate hit well over .250. When Uribe is hot offensively (2-3 times a year) he can flat carry a team as well as anyone for a week or more. That's good enough for me as long as he's playing great defense at the most difficult defensive position on the field. Ozzie used to drive me NUTS at the plate. I once saw Ozzie swing at a WILD PITCH! I'll go on record saying I'll take Juan over the '84 American league rookie of the year at SS. And every SS since him, too. And I LOVED Ozzie at SS.

Andersons problem is too many people telling him what his problem is. And I mean the coaching staff, past coaches, etc, by that. He's thinking too much, trying to be perfect. Something he'd NEVER done before. BA will be fine if people will leave him the hell alone and let him just go hit on instincts like he always has before. I honestly have no worries about BA long term. The guys gonna hit eventually and his D is awesome. The folks who call for Rowand back just make me laugh. Aaron was fun to watch, very excitable, etc. etc. but no where NEAR Andersons league as a fielder (I mean, no where close) and, ultimately, won't be offensively either. Rowand is a decent CF, but certainly not great and offensively he's not exactly a stud, either.

thomas35forever
12-02-2006, 02:03 AM
Now we can see how well he can pitch without a set score.

HomeFish
12-02-2006, 02:09 AM
SS most certainly is NOT an offensive position. Other than a handful of guys, it's most definately a defense first position. And Uribe is quite good defensively.

I would say that a shortstop today is expected to hit well, and that a team is at a marked disadvantage if their shortstop cannot hit.

Catcher is really the only position left where offensive ineptitude is acceptable.

Lillian
12-02-2006, 02:40 AM
Money has ZERO role in how a team sets it's rotation. Of that I'm sure. You work your pitching staff in the best way to help your team at the time. There is NO WAY Ozzie, of all people, is going to fill out a roster based on what this or that player makes. You should know better than that with him. They ran out what they believed were the 5 best starters they had last year, and you really can't argue against that with any legitimacy.

Actually we don't have a clue about where McCarthy fits, yet. A handful of good starts, late in the year, does not a career make...Unless you are one of those ready to induct Tony Romo into the Pro Football hall of fame as well. They have a pretty similar sample size in their respective sports.

Is there even a team Brandon has more than 1 career start against? We simply don't know if he is for real or not. The front offices actions will tell us what they think (And I sure hope they know more about it than we do). I'm almost convinced they've been playing him up the last two years to be trade bait in a blockbuster, but expected a better performance from him in relief. Why get Vazquez last season if they thought Brandon was the real deal? And make no mistake, they gave up a LOT to get Javier. It's not like he fell into their laps dirt cheap. To me, that was an obvious sign the organization didn't think McCarthy was ready. No matter what us knee jerk fans thought.

That said, sending him back to the minors is a sure sign of giving up on him. I'd sure hope they'd trade him before doing that. Even if it meant the return was less than originally wanted. I think Brandon was being set up to be trade bait or an insurance policy all along. I still have no clue if he's worth a crap as a starter and would trade him in a heartbeat in the right deal. But, like you, I have no clue what the front office or coaching staff knows.

These are some very good points. Thank you.
However, I do wonder if money really does not play a big role in how guys are used. I wish that were the case, because if the money was not a consideration, we could solve the bullpen void, and get McCarthy into the rotation, at the same time. All we would have to do is convert Javier Vazquez to a middle reliever. We all know that he's practically unhitable the first couple of times through the batting order. Moreover, he's a good strike out pitcher.
But then there's that money issue. How do you justify paying a middle reliever the big bucks? We have talked about this in previous threads, and I thought that most everyone agreed that you just couldn't make that kind of switch, even though it seemes like a plausible move, irrespective of the money.

Palehose13
12-02-2006, 02:54 AM
I have said since the offseason that the 3 offensive holes with the Sox are LF, CF, and SS. It is damn hard to find and keep a Rickey Henderson type leadoff hitter and it looks like KW is going to stick with Pods. That leaves SS and CF. While both are defensive positions you don't want both to be offensive holes. Kw is in a very strong position to be able to trade a ML ready starting pitcher. I believe that he will trade one of them to upgrade offensively at either SS or CF. Nothing against Juan or Brain, but you can't have 8-9-1 be a black hole like it was last year. One position has to improve and I believe that he will pull the trigger on that. *crosses fingers for Michael Young*

Frater Perdurabo
12-02-2006, 09:25 AM
I'll go on record saying I'll take Juan over the '84 American league rookie of the year at SS.

I would too, considering that Seattle's Alvin Davis (http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/davisal01.shtml) was a 1B/DH. :redneck

Ozzie won the award in 1985.

Craig Grebeck
12-02-2006, 10:19 AM
It is damn hard to find and keep a Rickey Henderson type leadoff hitter and it looks like KW is going to stick with Pods.
We don't need Rickey Henderson, we need someone to get on base and not consistently run into outs in early innings. The team is built around power, we don't need to scrape out runs. We aren't the Royals.

[/end rant]

Domeshot17
12-02-2006, 12:03 PM
common now, you know better. With Thome Crede Konerko Dye AJP and "wild man" Juan Uribe, this team is built on speed, bunting, small ball that can manufacture runs,and when the occasional long ball does come, good for those guys.

Ol' No. 2
12-02-2006, 12:47 PM
We don't need Rickey Henderson, we need someone to get on base and not consistently run into outs in early innings. The team is built around power, we don't need to scrape out runs. We aren't the Royals.

[/end rant]No, they're not. In fact, their biggest problem offensively in 2006 was that power was about all they had. Teams need BALANCE.

southwstchi4life
12-02-2006, 01:03 PM
No, they're not. In fact, their biggest problem offensively in 2006 was that power was about all they had. Teams need BALANCE.

Exactly. 2005 we had a great balance. Remember the teams of the early 2000's and late 90s were all built around power. Especially with Manuel coaching. There was not much success at all. We need men who can get on base and can run to balance out with the power.

Domeshot17
12-02-2006, 02:11 PM
2005 we had NO BALANCE. We had an offense that was very thin and shut down for almost a month. We did have games where we could 1 run a team death, but we also had plenty of games where we we could put up 1 run once, and lose 2-1.

The offense needs balance from the CF and SS positions the most. We get that, and the pitching turns it around, we are gold.

MRM
12-02-2006, 04:25 PM
These are some very good points. Thank you.
However, I do wonder if money really does not play a big role in how guys are used. I wish that were the case, because if the money was not a consideration, we could solve the bullpen void, and get McCarthy into the rotation, at the same time. All we would have to do is convert Javier Vazquez to a middle reliever. We all know that he's practically unhitable the first couple of times through the batting order. Moreover, he's a good strike out pitcher.
But then there's that money issue. How do you justify paying a middle reliever the big bucks? We have talked about this in previous threads, and I thought that most everyone agreed that you just couldn't make that kind of switch, even though it seemes like a plausible move, irrespective of the money.

That sounds great in theory, but in practice is probably not doable. And money has nothing to do with the reasons why. There is a HUGE difference in being a starter and coming out of the pen, as McCarthy found out last year.

A starting pitcher is very much a creature of habit. They prepare to pitch every 5 days, have a strict workout regime between starts, etc. Relief pitchers have to be ready with little notice, pitch on consecutive days, sometime go a week or more without pitching. You can't translate what a starter does to what he would do in the pen, and vice versa. There have been examples where such a move has worked well (Ekersley and Smotz come to mind) but it's rare.

That's the reason I laugh out loud every time I see some Boston sports writer suggesting they should re-sign Roger Clemens as their closer. That guy may have the most detailed and habit driven schedule in history. Moving him to closer would be about the dumbest thing you could do. Did Red Sox nation not learn their lesson with Schilling?

PaleHoseGeorge
12-02-2006, 04:31 PM
No, they're not. In fact, their biggest problem offensively in 2006 was that power was about all they had. Teams need BALANCE.

I remember jousting with you for over a year on this very same subject. "Balance" was your preferred word for Ozzie playing baseball like an NLer.

More offense, more "balance"... call it whatever you want. The 2005 Sox don't win jack without PITCHING. The 2006 Sox didn't win jack without PITCHING.

Is that specific enough for you?
:wink:

MRM
12-02-2006, 04:46 PM
No, they're not. In fact, their biggest problem offensively in 2006 was that power was about all they had. Teams need BALANCE.

They were 6th in the A.L. in OBP. 5th in B.A. 5th in BB. 7th in SB. 3rd in runs scored. 1st in HRs. 1st in slg%. 1st in total bases.

Looks pretty balanced to me. In fact, more balanced than any other team in the league other than the Yankees. Offensively they were in the top half of the league in EVERYTHING. To say "power was about all they had" is a gross misstatement. And despite leading the league in power, they were only 6th in strike outs. The two usually go hand in hand but the Sox as a whole were pretty disciplined at the plate despite all the power.

And, if I recall correctly, they were only shut out two or three times all season. That's incredible for any team. It's not like they weren't scoring runs when they lost games. You can't lead the league in everything. Offense was NOT a problem this year.

Jerome
12-02-2006, 05:53 PM
I assume this means we can trade one of the 9 mil-per year starters for OF / relief / whatever help?

Regardless, it will be good to see him in the rotation. What he did for those 2 months in 05 were amazing

Frontman
12-02-2006, 06:32 PM
Its a shame money plays so much role in how a team handle's its unit. The rotation should be the best 5 starters on the team, Brandon is obviously one of those 5 (and argueably the 3rd or 4th best on the team). However, because he does not yet make 9-12 million a season, he can be the odd man out.

I really hope they aren't dumb enough to send him back to triple A. Brandon's been getting the shaft for a while now.

Winning a world series ring, remaining on the major league roster as a reliever even though he wasn't very good out of the 'pen, getting paid to yuk it up with the Score afternoon show, and is beloved by fans even though he cost us games we could of won when he did come into the game, but that fact gets ignored by the Brandon Bunch. Yeah, complete shaft job.

Ol' No. 2
12-02-2006, 07:10 PM
I remember jousting with you for over a year on this very same subject. "Balance" was your preferred word for Ozzie playing baseball like an NLer.

More offense, more "balance"... call it whatever you want. The 2005 Sox don't win jack without PITCHING. The 2006 Sox didn't win jack without PITCHING.

Is that specific enough for you?
:wink:No ****. That's why I said their biggest problem offensively...

Balance is not scoring almost 50% of your runs off of HR.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-02-2006, 07:23 PM
No ****. That's why I said their biggest problem offensively...

Balance is not scoring almost 50% of your runs off of HR.

Offensively the Sox were at least as good in 2006 as 2005... it was their PITCHING that raised them up and it was their PITCHING that let them down... offensive "balance" be damned.

Let it go, No. 2. Easy, now... just let it go...

:cool:

Craig Grebeck
12-03-2006, 12:21 AM
No ****. That's why I said their biggest problem offensively...

Balance is not scoring almost 50% of your runs off of HR.
So, if we had the 2006 offense in 2005 we wouldn't have won? I'm just assuming. I know you didn't say this, but by your line of thinking it should be true.

kitekrazy
12-05-2006, 11:40 PM
Make it easy. Go with a 6 man rotation.