PDA

View Full Version : "On Paper" 2006 vs. 2007


toledosoxfan
12-27-2006, 08:30 PM
There has been a lot of talk recently about how the team looks "on paper" after KW's recent trades. And Kenny has been derided by a lot of people in this forum. I think they are too quick to judge. Lets take a closer look....

2006 2007
Contreras Contreras
Buehrle Buehrle
Garland Garland
Garcia Vazquez
Vazquez Haeger/Floyd

The "quick to judge" will point to the non-proven 5th starter next year, but I have a problem with that. First of all, who is to say that the 2007 staff is better or worse than 2006? Pitching, in my opinion, is the most difficult of all positions to judge with any amount of certainty from year to year. All you can say is that 2006 is more experienced. In my opinion, Buehrle is definitely better than his worst season in his career. And who said we had a decent starter for a no. 5 last year (Vazquez) vs. 2007?

What really changes next year is the bullpen, which I think could be the best in baseball right now. Who can match Jenks, McDougal, Thornton, Masset, Aardsma, Sisco? That can be absolutely dominating. I for one can't wait to see.

Daver
12-27-2006, 08:35 PM
You forgot about the missing ace, Brandon McCarthy, he was guaranteed to be the fifth starter, just ask a few of the members.

The McCarthy loyalists also would not have complained had he stayed true to last seasons performance, which projects to giving up 85 HR's and an ERA over 6 as a starter, because he wasn't traded away for nothing but prospects damnit.

digdagdug23
12-27-2006, 08:37 PM
There has been a lot of talk recently about how the team looks "on paper" after KW's recent trades. And Kenny has been derided by a lot of people in this forum. I think they are too quick to judge. Lets take a closer look....

2006 2007
Contreras Contreras
Buehrle Buehrle
Garland Garland
Garcia Vazquez
Vazquez Haeger/Floyd

The "quick to judge" will point to the non-proven 5th starter next year, but I have a problem with that. First of all, who is to say that the 2007 staff is better or worse than 2006? Pitching, in my opinion, is the most difficult of all positions to judge with any amount of certainty from year to year. All you can say is that 2006 is more experienced. In my opinion, Buehrle is definitely better than his worst season in his career. And who said we had a decent starter for a no. 5 last year (Vazquez) vs. 2007?

What really changes next year is the bullpen, which I think could be the best in baseball right now. Who can match Jenks, McDougal, Thornton, Masset, Aardsma, Sisco? That can be absolutely dominating. I for one can't wait to see.


Oh but our hopes are dashed and the sky is falling without B-Mac. However will we play another game?

ETA- Daver beat me to the punch, daggit!

Frater Perdurabo
12-27-2006, 08:46 PM
which projects to giving up 85 HR's and an ERA over 6 as a starter,

Daver, I agree with your overall argument and I also agree with your admonitions about putting too much faith in numbers, but can you explain to me how surrendering 17 homers and a 4.68 ERA in 84.2 innings projects to 85 HRs and an ERA over 6 in a full season of starting (200 or so innings)?

champagne030
12-27-2006, 09:00 PM
You forgot about the missing ace, Brandon McCarthy, he was guaranteed to be the fifth starter, just ask a few of the members.

The McCarthy loyalists also would not have complained had he stayed true to last seasons performance, which projects to giving up 85 HR's and an ERA over 6 as a starter, because he wasn't traded away for nothing but prospects damnit.

Nice use of selective stats! I can play that game too. I don't care if he gives up 85 home runs as long as his ERA is 3.86, has 17 wins, 33 BB's and 200K's.

:rolleyes:

I didn't think McCarthy would be Cy Young, but for '07 he had a hell of a lot better chance of having success as our 5th starter than anything we currently have on our roster.

Daver
12-27-2006, 09:21 PM
Daver, I agree with your overall argument and I also agree with your admonitions about putting too much faith in numbers, but can you explain to me how surrendering 17 homers and a 4.68 ERA in 84.2 innings projects to 85 HRs and an ERA over 6 in a full season of starting (200 or so innings)?

I did what any propellerhead does, I pulled them out of my ass based on 170 innings pitched.

Chisox003
12-27-2006, 09:33 PM
but for '07 he had a hell of a lot better chance of having success as our 5th starter than anything we currently have on our roster.
This is something that I just don't, and will NEVER understand.

How the HELL did you arrive at that conclusion? Seriously, I'd love to know.

McCarthy loyalists = classic :roflmao:

itsnotrequired
12-27-2006, 09:38 PM
This is something that I just don't, and will NEVER understand.

How the HELL did you arrive at that conclusion? Seriously, I'd love to know.

McCarthy loyalists = classic :roflmao:

I was going to post something like this but realized there was the weasel-word "chance". McCarthy perhaps has a better chance than the other guys but a "hell of a better chance"? That's a guess. Hell, even a better chance is a guess. I mean, were talking about a guy that has started what, 8 ML games in his career? McCarthy could be the next Black Jack or the next answer to a trivia question.

Frater Perdurabo
12-27-2006, 10:15 PM
I did what any propellerhead does, I pulled them out of my ass based on 170 innings pitched.

I guess I just gave you more credit than the properllerheads. I feel so violated now. :redneck

From now on, any numbers or comments pulled out of anuses should be posted in brown type. Of course, the properllerheads will have to post all their feces in brown. :D:

Properllerheads: What can Brown poo for you?

itsnotrequired
12-27-2006, 10:18 PM
I guess I just gave you more credit than the properllerheads. I feel so violated now. :redneck

From now on, any numbers or comments pulled out of anuses should be posted in brown type. Of course, the properllerheads will have to post all their feces in brown. :D:

Properllerheads: What can Brown poo for you?

The WSI "Brown Team" may take offense to this.:redneck

Frater Perdurabo
12-27-2006, 10:20 PM
The WSI "Brown Team" may take offense to this.:redneck

How can I know if I'm offending something that no one every discusses, an organization that has as one of its rules a prohibition against discussion said organization.
:tongue:

champagne030
12-27-2006, 10:21 PM
This is something that I just don't, and will NEVER understand.

How the HELL did you arrive at that conclusion? Seriously, I'd love to know.

McCarthy loyalists = classic :roflmao:

Because Danks and Gio are not close to ready, Floyd has just flat out sucked for 3 years and McCarthy is better than Haegar in '07. Sisco or Masset will not be starting for us in '07. That's how......

itsnotrequired
12-27-2006, 10:32 PM
Because Danks and Gio are not close to ready, Floyd has just flat out sucked for 3 years and McCarthy is better than Haegar in '07. Sisco or Masset will not be starting for us in '07. That's how......

I'm amazed that without a single 2007 pitch thrown, you already know that McCarthy will be better than Haeger and Sisco or Masset will be a starter.

Since you have a crystal ball, can you tell me if the Sox win it all in 2007? If not, can you tell me which team does? I'm looking to make some guaranteed money.

:redneck

Palehose13
12-27-2006, 10:38 PM
I'm amazed that without a single 2007 pitch thrown, you already know that McCarthy will be better than Haeger and Sisco or Masset will be a starter.

Since you have a crystal ball, can you tell me if the Sox win it all in 2007? If not, can you tell me which team does? I'm looking to make some guaranteed money.

:redneck

Hell, how about some lottery numbers.

champagne030
12-27-2006, 10:45 PM
I was going to post something like this but realized there was the weasel-word "chance". McCarthy perhaps has a better chance than the other guys but a "hell of a better chance"? That's a guess. Hell, even a better chance is a guess. I mean, were talking about a guy that has started what, 8 ML games in his career? McCarthy could be the next Black Jack or the next answer to a trivia question.

McCarthy has at least started games at the ML level and did well in a lot of those starts. Sure, McCarthy could fall on his face and have an ERA of 5.00. I'm pretty sure that nobody, outside of Haegar (and that's a leap of faith), can do that from our 5th starter pool.

I have no problem trading McCarthy, but call it for what it is....the future.

Kenny was in a box, in that he had 4 guys who were up for free agency within a 2 year window. We didn't have the depth to fill those spots had they left. KW is rolling the dice that quantity over quality will get us by THIS season and then we're not stuck paying insane prices to keep our veteran starters if we cannot sign them. Yes, these arms are better than Stewart, Diaz, ect. The problem I have is they were much more ready (command wise). These guys might be able to get away with more mistakes, but they're making a ****load more of them (at this point in there careers). Been there done that with the 5th starter roulette of past seasons and the LOOGY tryout of last season. The risk with KW's plan is who knows what our lineup will be like when all this young pitching talent is ready.

Just admit that we're most likely taking a step back in our rotation for '07 to gain 4 steps in '09. It doesn't mean we cannot win the World Series this season, but the margin for error is that much smaller for '07 because of the McCarthy trade.

Palehose13
12-27-2006, 10:51 PM
Just admit that we're most likely taking a step back in our rotation for '07 to gain 4 steps in '09. It doesn't mean we cannot win the World Series this season, but the margin for error is that much smaller for '07 because of the McCarthy trade.

Not unless you give me some winning lottery numbers. :D:

champagne030
12-27-2006, 10:54 PM
Not unless you give me some winning lottery numbers. :D:

I'll need to wait to see what Floyd, Haegar, Broadway, ect. are issued in spring training.....:tongue:

Ol' No. 2
12-27-2006, 10:54 PM
McCarthy has at least started games at the ML level and did well in a lot of those starts. Sure, McCarthy could fall on his face and have an ERA of 5.00. I'm pretty sure that nobody, outside of Haegar (and that's a leap of faith), can do that from our 5th starter pool.

I have no problem trading McCarthy, but call it for what it is....the future.

Kenny was in a box, in that he had 4 guys who were up for free agency within a 2 year window. We didn't have the depth to fill those spots had they left. KW is rolling the dice that quantity over quality will get us by THIS season and then we're not stuck paying insane prices to keep our veteran starters if we cannot sign them. Yes, these arms are better than Stewart, Diaz, ect. The problem I have is they were much more ready (command wise). These guys might be able to get away with more mistakes, but they're making a ****load more of them (at this point in there careers). Been there done that with the 5th starter roulette of past seasons and the LOOGY tryout of last season. The risk with KW's plan is who knows what our lineup will be like when all this young pitching talent is ready.

Just admit that we're most likely taking a step back in our rotation for '07 to gain 4 steps in '09. It doesn't mean we cannot win the World Series this season, but the margin for error is that much smaller for '07 because of the McCarthy trade.What in hell gives you such a high opinion of McCarthy? Is it all his Cy Young awards? His multiple 20-win seasons? His 12 major league starts? He's just as much of a crap shoot as the guys they got in trade. If he was half the pitcher you think he is, then why would they trade him for Danks and Massett? I'm pretty sure they know him better than you do, and if the Sox brass believe they're better off with Floyd, Danks and Haegar, I'm a hell of a lot more likely to believe them than you.

Daver
12-27-2006, 10:58 PM
Because Danks and Gio are not close to ready, Floyd has just flat out sucked for 3 years and McCarthy is better than Haegar in '07. Sisco or Masset will not be starting for us in '07. That's how......

This is based on how many times you have seen these players play in how many games?

champagne030
12-27-2006, 11:06 PM
What in hell gives you such a high opinion of McCarthy? Is it all his Cy Young awards? His multiple 20-win seasons? His 12 major league starts? He's just as much of a crap shoot as the guys they got in trade. If he was half the pitcher you think he is, then why would they trade him for Danks and Massett? I'm pretty sure they know him better than you do, and if the Sox brass believe they're better off with Floyd, Danks and Haegar, I'm a hell of a lot more likely to believe them than you.

Did you read my post you quoted? They traded him for the future. I've also stated in this thread that I never expected Cy Young awards for McCarthy or stated that Floyd, Danks and Haegar may not be better after '07 than McCarthy (well, I'll admit Floyd will not). I cannot remember hearing KW saying Floyd, Danks and Haegar would be better in '07. Do you have a quote?

Andy T Clown
12-27-2006, 11:27 PM
There was a time that Scott Ruffcorn was untouchable!:?:

Hitmen77
12-27-2006, 11:36 PM
There has been a lot of talk recently about how the team looks "on paper" after KW's recent trades. And Kenny has been derided by a lot of people in this forum. I think they are too quick to judge. Lets take a closer look....

2006 2007
Contreras Contreras
Buehrle Buehrle
Garland Garland
Garcia Vazquez
Vazquez Haeger/Floyd

The "quick to judge" will point to the non-proven 5th starter next year, but I have a problem with that. First of all, who is to say that the 2007 staff is better or worse than 2006? Pitching, in my opinion, is the most difficult of all positions to judge with any amount of certainty from year to year. All you can say is that 2006 is more experienced. In my opinion, Buehrle is definitely better than his worst season in his career. And who said we had a decent starter for a no. 5 last year (Vazquez) vs. 2007?

What really changes next year is the bullpen, which I think could be the best in baseball right now. Who can match Jenks, McDougal, Thornton, Masset, Aardsma, Sisco? That can be absolutely dominating. I for one can't wait to see.

I think 2007 will be all about whether Buehrle and Contreras can rebound from a bad 2006 (for MB, he went downhill at the beginning of July. JC never regained his form after going on the DL in May.) The potential upside for these 2 starters (compared to '06) is huge.

I expect Vazquez and Garland to not change much for '07. No reason to think Javy is suddenly going to be Mr. Consistency for the whole season - but at least maybe we can avoid the automatic 6th inning meltdown phase again next year.

5th starter? I understand KW's reason for the McCarthy trade and this may pay huge dividends in the future....and I agree that B -Mac is no sure thing to be good next year. But, I have to admit that I'm a little concerned about our 5th starter spot now. This may be a source of frustration for us next year.

I agree the bullpen is much improved. However, I wouldn't get carried away with being too sold on Aardsma and Sisco. Both guys have struggled. I'm not convinced they will be "dominating". We still have questions marks in our pen. However, we seem to be way ahead of last year as far as candidates to at least be servicable in the bullpen.

rainbow6
12-28-2006, 12:03 AM
McCarthy has at least started games at the ML level and did well in a lot of those starts. Sure, McCarthy could fall on his face and have an ERA of 5.00. I'm pretty sure that nobody, outside of Haegar (and that's a leap of faith), can do that from our 5th starter pool.

I have no problem trading McCarthy, but call it for what it is....the future.

Kenny was in a box, in that he had 4 guys who were up for free agency within a 2 year window. We didn't have the depth to fill those spots had they left. KW is rolling the dice that quantity over quality will get us by THIS season and then we're not stuck paying insane prices to keep our veteran starters if we cannot sign them. Yes, these arms are better than Stewart, Diaz, ect. The problem I have is they were much more ready (command wise). These guys might be able to get away with more mistakes, but they're making a ****load more of them (at this point in there careers). Been there done that with the 5th starter roulette of past seasons and the LOOGY tryout of last season. The risk with KW's plan is who knows what our lineup will be like when all this young pitching talent is ready.

Just admit that we're most likely taking a step back in our rotation for '07 to gain 4 steps in '09. It doesn't mean we cannot win the World Series this season, but the margin for error is that much smaller for '07 because of the McCarthy trade.

I've read everyone's thoughts the past few days with great interest but this post sums up the McCarthy trade perfectly. After some initial doubts, I'm fully behind the two trades and the stategy to stockpile young, highly-touted arms. I'm tired of ****ting my pants worrying how we're going to combat Santana, Liriano, etc. in the years to come. If even one of these prospects develops into a TRUE ace, it will all be worth it...

However, conventional wisdom tells us that McCarthy's experience the last couple years should benefit him next year...although he may not stack up "stuff-wise" with Danks or Flyod he is certainly further developed on the ML level...

Would any of the McCarthy-haters be willing to bet that whoever fills the 5th spot wins more games than Garcia or Brandon? Or pitches more innings? I know I wouldn't, but I hope I'm wrong.

I may be in the minority, but if these trades put us in a better position to dominate in a couple of years, and win another WS, I can wait.


L.

ondafarm
12-28-2006, 12:04 AM
Just admit that we're most likely taking a step back in our rotation for '07 to gain 4 steps in '09. . .

Nope. McCarthy hasn't pitched the load that would be required of him as the fifth starter in Ozzie's system. The Sox demand almost 200 innings from their #5 man (and #1-#4 as well.) Until a guy has done that you don't know how he and his body will react. We are moving one guy who wasn't a certain thing to put up for grabs a position with two guys, Haeger and Floyd who have some major league experience as starters and have also pitched 200 innings in minor league seasons previously.

The gamble is different, both Haeger and Floyd could fail and the other guys in the competition could fail as well. My guess having been around open competition for pitching spots before is that at least one guy will step up and be the man. My money is on Floyd because Arizona weather in March is not conducive to knuckleballs. He also just needs a change of scenery.

McCarthy has good stuff and I'll root for him when he plays everyone but the Sox, but he is a gamble as well.

jabrch
12-28-2006, 12:22 AM
We need to implement a new form of McCarthyism. I'd begin by proposing we create a Loyalty Review Board to seek out Communists, FOBmac, Gaciaists and those committing Un-Soxian activities.

SluggersAway
12-28-2006, 12:35 AM
Paper, shmaper, I still would've liked to have seen what the complete 2005 team (minus a little tinkering in the bullpen) could've done in 2006. Certainly not any worse than the official record.

SABRSox
12-28-2006, 12:35 AM
I've read everyone's thoughts the past few days with great interest but this post sums up the McCarthy trade perfectly. After some initial doubts, I'm fully behind the two trades and the stategy to stockpile young, highly-touted arms. I'm tired of ****ting my pants worrying how we're going to combat Santana, Liriano, etc. in the years to come. If even one of these prospects develops into a TRUE ace, it will all be worth it...

People are freaking out because their previously unknown 5th starter was replaced with an even more unknown 5th starter. That doesn't mean the replacement isn't as capable.

People are also freaking out because people like Phil Rogers are telling them that the White Sox won't re-sign Buehrle or Garland. Of course, people like him don't take into consideration that KW himself said that in the case of top prospects, maybe 1 in 4 or 2 in 6 pan out.

So I guess Kenny is just going to let Buehrle and Garland walk because suddenly, he's not going to miss on a single one of these new prospects. Come on. Every day I grow more confident that Buehrle gets an extension...

SluggersAway
12-28-2006, 12:39 AM
People are also freaking out because people like Phil Rogers are telling them that...

No one worth his/her salt on this site is letting Phil Rogers tell him/her anything. It is a lot more complicated.

jabrch
12-28-2006, 12:46 AM
People are freaking out because their previously unknown 5th starter was replaced with an even more unknown 5th starter. That doesn't mean the replacement isn't as capable.

People are also freaking out because people like Phil Rogers are telling them that the White Sox won't re-sign Buehrle or Garland. Of course, people like him don't take into consideration that KW himself said that in the case of top prospects, maybe 1 in 4 or 2 in 6 pan out.

So I guess Kenny is just going to let Buehrle and Garland walk because suddenly, he's not going to miss on a single one of these new prospects. Come on. Every day I grow more confident that Buehrle gets an extension...

If the reason we don't resign Buehrle and Garland is because Danks, Gio and Flyod all develop and are front of the rotation starters, then I will do the same thing with Mark and John as I did with Freddy. Thank them (in my own little mind) for 2005, wish them luck in STL and LAA, and move on to have great young starters to cheer for. If they are resigned, I'll cheer for them.

For some reason I highly doubt that KW will just let those two guys walk, and not have people ready to replace them that will keep this team a contender.

Huisj
12-28-2006, 01:37 AM
We need to implement a new form of McCarthyism. I'd begin by proposing we create a Loyalty Review Board to seek out Communists, FOFingernails on a blackboard, Gaciaists and those committing Un-Soxian activities.

Sounds like the dark cloud hunt of August and September of '05.

jabrch
12-28-2006, 01:38 AM
Sounds like the dark cloud hunt of August and September of '05.


Ah the glory days!!!!

MisterB
12-28-2006, 03:31 AM
Nope. McCarthy hasn't pitched the load that would be required of him as the fifth starter in Ozzie's system. The Sox demand almost 200 innings from their #5 man (and #1-#4 as well.) Until a guy has done that you don't know how he and his body will react. We are moving one guy who wasn't a certain thing to put up for grabs a position with two guys, Haeger and Floyd who have some major league experience as starters and have also pitched 200 innings in minor league seasons previously.

Neither McCarthy, Haeger nor Floyd have pitched 200 innings in a season.

Top IP:
McCarthy - 186 1/3 (2005-AAA/ML)
Haeger - 188 1/3 (2006-AAA/ML)
Floyd - 178 (2004-AA/AAA/ML)

ChicagoHoosier
12-28-2006, 09:27 AM
I think 2007 will be all about whether Buehrle and Contreras can rebound from a bad 2006 (for MB, he went downhill at the beginning of July. JC never regained his form after going on the DL in May.) The potential upside for these 2 starters (compared to '06) is huge.

I expect Vazquez and Garland to not change much for '07. No reason to think Javy is suddenly going to be Mr. Consistency for the whole season - but at least maybe we can avoid the automatic 6th inning meltdown phase again next year.

5th starter? I understand KW's reason for the McCarthy trade and this may pay huge dividends in the future....and I agree that B -Mac is no sure thing to be good next year. But, I have to admit that I'm a little concerned about our 5th starter spot now. This may be a source of frustration for us next year.

I agree the bullpen is much improved. However, I wouldn't get carried away with being too sold on Aardsma and Sisco. Both guys have struggled. I'm not convinced they will be "dominating". We still have questions marks in our pen. However, we seem to be way ahead of last year as far as candidates to at least be servicable in the bullpen.

We need to save this thread for 08 and 09 as well, because I agree with several people on this board in saying we're trying to tread water this year while not sinking the following year.

Having said that, Hitmen is hitting on what I wanted to point out as well. Obviously, there are several IFs, but that's what this thread is all about. IF JC can have at least 1/2 or 3/4 season in his true form, not his injured form... IF Garland can stay consistent, IF Buehrle can pitch like he has the past 5 years excluding last year, and IF Vasquez can continue pitching like he did the last month of September... then I feel we have a better starting rotation regardless of who is our 5th starter unless that guy falls completely on his face. I realize I'm being overly optimistic, but I'd like to think Garland and Buerhle will be themselves, JC will pitch well but have at least one stint on the DL, and Vasquez will be improved over last year as a whole.

You add all that up, plus our bullpen, and I feel we actually have better pitching than 06.

downstairs
12-28-2006, 09:48 AM
It is not an argument whether McCarthy would have been better in 2007 than our current 5th starter. It's the fact that some team absolutely would have overpaid us for McCarthy.

Imagine what some team would have done once Zito was gone, and the Clemens and Johnson talks settled, and no real big-time pitchers were left.

Last year McCarthy was being packaged with other players to get ARod (which was silly, yeah... but still...). Now we get minor leaguers.

Kenny did a poor job overselling him- which in today's market should be easier than normal.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 09:48 AM
What really changes next year is the bullpen, which I think could be the best in baseball right now. Who can match Jenks, McDougal, Thornton, Masset, Aardsma, Sisco? That can be absolutely dominating. I for one can't wait to see.

I like your angle overall, but why does everyone seem to equate Sisco + Massett + Aardsma to this legendary status? Have I missed something in their careers that everyone else knows? I like their potential, but to call them the best bullpen in baseball for 2007 is as Hawk would say, a S-T-R-E-T-C-H, S-T-R-E-T-C-H.

Fake Chet Lemon
12-28-2006, 09:53 AM
We need to implement a new form of McCarthyism. I'd begin by proposing we create a Loyalty Review Board to seek out Communists, FOFingernails on a blackboard, Gaciaists and those committing Un-Soxian activities.

The mods are already doing a great job of this. Start an overly negative thread on the Sox or Reinsdorf now and it winds up in the Roadhouse ASAP. Go ahead propaganda sympathizers, reply to this post with the rolling eyes. You know you want to do it............

ondafarm
12-28-2006, 10:45 AM
Neither McCarthy, Haeger nor Floyd have pitched 200 innings in a season.

Top IP:
McCarthy - 186 1/3 (2005-AAA/ML)
Haeger - 188 1/3 (2006-AAA/ML)
Floyd - 178 (2004-AA/AAA/ML)

Which just proves my point that the Sox have not significantly weakened their #5 spot; everybody considered for it is a gamble. McCarthy would have been as much as either of the leading candidates.

maurice
12-29-2006, 03:26 PM
Imagine the Detroit boards before the 2006 season:

How are we going to surpass the White Sox, much less win the pennant? The Sox are loaded with veteran pitchers, while we're using unproven guys. None of these young guys will do anything in 2006. They'll all post 6.00 ERAs. The sky is falling. Blah blah blah.

Please stop stating predictions as facts, unless you can point to the posts where you predicted that Jenks would emerge as a top closer in 2005, that Thornton would pitch great for the Sox in 2006, etc. Also, please stop ignoring the fact that Minnesota and Detroit don't have 12 pitchers each who are guaranteed to be healthy and fantastic in 2007.

jabrch
12-29-2006, 04:05 PM
The mods are already doing a great job of this. Start an overly negative thread on the Sox or Reinsdorf now and it winds up in the Roadhouse ASAP. Go ahead propaganda sympathizers, reply to this post with the rolling eyes. You know you want to do it............

I'm amazed they tolerate some of the crap from some idiots that they allow on THEIR board. If you came into my house talking some of the nonsense that you and others do, you would not be invited back a second time.

Clearly unsubstantiatable bullcrap about this team rebuilding, or not being competitive is assinine. I'm all for good baseball discussion, but that's not what people do when they are saying that this team is not a contender because of the moves KW made this offseason.

FarWestChicago
12-29-2006, 05:17 PM
The mods are already doing a great job of this. Start an overly negative thread on the Sox or Reinsdorf now and it winds up in the Roadhouse ASAP. Go ahead propaganda sympathizers, reply to this post with the rolling eyes. You know you want to do it............I'll save you the trouble of having to see what a terrible job we do around here for a while. Take some time off to start your own board.

FarWestChicago
12-29-2006, 05:21 PM
I'm amazed they tolerate some of the crap from some idiots that they allow on THEIR board. If you came into my house talking some of the nonsense that you and others do, you would not be invited back a second time.I'm not putting up with it anymore.

Palehose13
12-29-2006, 05:22 PM
The mods are already doing a great job of this. Start an overly negative thread on the Sox or Reinsdorf now and it winds up in the Roadhouse ASAP. Go ahead propaganda sympathizers, reply to this post with the rolling eyes. You know you want to do it............

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c55/ZoSoKarl/00028489g3zwcp4.gif

PaleHoseGeorge
12-29-2006, 07:32 PM
Back to the original question posed...

"On paper" the 2006 Sox team was significantly better than the 2005 team that won the world championship:


The DH was improved with a healthy Thome capable of putting up numbers better than what Frank Thomas had managed the last several seasons working through injuries, or Carl Everett could ever hope to achieve.
The rotation was stronger with the addition of Vazquez over the terminally-risky Orlando Hernandez.
A better bench with Cintron and Mackowiak
All other everyday players back except one (Rowand) replaced by a rookie. This is still far fewer question marks than the Sox pushed forward with to start the 2005 season: Uribe, Jenks, and Garland (the guy so shaky, he was slotted #5 in the rotaion!).And yet, somehow, the 2006 Sox only won 90 games, six fewer than the 2005 Sox, and missed the playoffs entirely. I'm MORE CONFIDENT entering the 2007 season than I was entering the 2005 season.

THE SEASON ISN'T PLAYED ON PAPER ANYWHERE BUT THE BASEBALL PROSPECTUS.

That's what makes the Baseball Prospectus for losers. Next question.

:cool:

FedEx227
12-29-2006, 07:38 PM
Last year McCarthy was being packaged with other players to get ARod (which was silly, yeah... but still...). Now we get minor leaguers.

...Okay. I hate these posts.

Where were the deals? Do you have any proof that last year McCarthy was going to be packaged to give us A-Rod?

People love to say what we "COULD'VE" gotten, but how do we know?! We don't. When we're chit-chatting we might be saying Tejada for McCarthy + Blah, but that doesn't mean the Orioles are thinking the same thing. Some people need to get that through their head. KW has been notorious for getting the most out of every deal and until he proves me wrong he'll get the benefit of the doubt. But saying that we COULD'VE gotten this and that for McCarthy is a joke, how do you know? Do you run a MLB franchise?

Save McCuddy's
12-30-2006, 12:37 AM
People are freaking out because their previously unknown 5th starter was replaced with an even more unknown 5th starter. That doesn't mean the replacement isn't as capable.

Yah, and they continually neglect to acknowledge that we traded for a somewhat proven commodity in Vazquez to fill the 5 hole last year - a strategy that fell short of a championship. Why not change it up?

I like these deals. The philosophy I favor for the 5 hole is one of economic frugality and an open spot to audition talented young arms. Occasionally you catch lightning in the bottle the way the Yankees did in '05 with Wang.

ondafarm
12-30-2006, 01:35 AM
. . . I like these deals. The philosophy I favor for the 5 hole is one of economic frugality and an open spot to audition talented young arms. Occasionally you catch lightning in the bottle the way the Yankees did in '05 with Wang.

Not sure I like the Wang comparison but I like the rest of your post. Baseball players are competitive by nature and giving a couple of guys an open shot at the #5 spot in the rotation sounds like a pretty good way to get at least one to step up and show everyone that he is the man.

drewcifer
12-30-2006, 02:11 AM
Not sure I like the Wang comparison but I like the rest of your post. Baseball players are competitive by nature and giving a couple of guys an open shot at the #5 spot in the rotation sounds like a pretty good way to get at least one to step up and show everyone that he is the man.

:?:

That's exactly what Wang did for the Yanks. Nothing to be "unsure" about.

ChicagoHoosier
01-02-2007, 12:54 PM
I'm MORE CONFIDENT entering the 2007 season than I was entering the 2005 season.

Can't agree more. I was excited about the 2005 team going into the season, but feel this is a more experienced team and more known qualities. If anything, I would say I was more confident in last year's team than either than the 2007 or 2005 team, and look where that got us.

Vasquez is a pretty big key. I have faith that MB will bounce back and JC and JG will be solid 14-16 game winners if healthy. If we can have Vasquez pitch in 07 like he did the fall of 06, then we have a pretty potent 1-4 punch.

Bob G
01-02-2007, 02:54 PM
So here's my predictions for our '07 pitching staff assuming no further trades:

MB: 12 --> 17 Rebound year for Mark
JC: 13 --> 16 If Jose stays healthy
JG: 18 --> 18 Our most consistent SP
JV: 11 -->12 Has good enough stuff for at least 12 W's
#5: -----> 12 Not sure who this will be yet
FG: 17 --> 0 Will probably win 20 in the NL
Bullpen: 19 --> 20 Should be better than last year

Total: 90 --> 95 might be just enough for the postseason

Hitmen77
01-02-2007, 07:28 PM
One plus I see for 07 vs. 06 is that the Sox are not reigning champs. It seemed to me like there was almost no offseason last year. I wonder if the players felt that way too and it took its toll on them during the '06 season.