PDA

View Full Version : Sisco heading back to the starting rotation


Beautox
01-01-2007, 09:47 AM
Sisco and Williams talked shortly after he arrived from Kansas City, and the decision was made to put Sisco back on track for the starting rotation. In the interim, Sisco will join Matt Thornton and possibly Boone Logan or Heath Phillips as the left-handed core of the White Sox bullpen. These plus arms join the right-handed tandem of closer Bobby Jenks and Mike MacDougal, providing almost as daunting of a challenge as the White Sox very deep starting rotation. link (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061219&content_id=1764259&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws)

DumpJerry
01-01-2007, 09:54 AM
The article says he's headed to the 'Pen. Sounds like they would like for him to eventually be in the rotation, but he first has to prove himself. The Trib today says he is bullpen material.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-061231sox,1,1613341.story?coll=chi-sportstop-hed

jabrch
01-01-2007, 10:18 AM
If he is "on track" for the starting rotation, that would mean he will likely spend 2007 in Charlotte, not in the pen in Chicago.

Beer Can Chicken
01-01-2007, 10:29 AM
Reading comprehension good.

"In the interim, Sisco will join Matt Thornton and possibly Boone Logan or Heath Phillips as the left-handed core of the White Sox bullpen. These plus arms join the right-handed tandem of closer Bobby Jenks and Mike MacDougal, providing almost as daunting of a challenge as the White Sox very deep starting rotation."

DaleJRFan
01-01-2007, 03:39 PM
Both KW and Don Cooper have said in radio interviews that they will allow Sisco opportunities to come into games at the start of a clean inning, meaning no inherited runners, etc... with a chance to show he can be effective when given the game.

We'll see. :dunno:

Domeshot17
01-01-2007, 04:47 PM
I wonder if Sisco will get a chance in spring training to start a few games and compete for the rotation spot(or spots if some of the vazquez rumors pan out)

thomas35forever
01-01-2007, 10:11 PM
I wonder if Sisco will get a chance in spring training to start a few games and compete for the rotation spot(or spots if some of the vazquez rumors pan out)
I doubt it. We can't afford a Wood/Prior situation.

DumpJerry
01-01-2007, 11:51 PM
I doubt it. We can't afford a Wood/Prior situation.
Are you referring to two starters with tremendous potential, but will never live up to it?

thomas35forever
01-02-2007, 12:51 AM
Are you referring to two starters with tremendous potential, but will never live up to it?
I'm referring to a young pitcher's arm that's blown out before he becomes a superstar in this league.

ssginc
01-02-2007, 04:36 PM
Two quotes that stand out:

1) "I don't know if we've had this type of a mix of power and stuff and youth on our side, that could grow into championship caliber," added Williams of his relief crew.

"Could grow..." ?!?!?

I'm sorry, but I must have missed the memo because I thought the goal was to put together "championship caliber" THIS YEAR?

I guess one -1- World Series, record-breaking attendance/profits and a 90-win team is enough to justify why KW feels compelled to rebuild, rather than put together a championship caliber team in 2007.

**rolling eyes**


2) These plus arms join the right-handed tandem of closer Bobby Jenks and Mike MacDougal, providing almost as daunting of a challenge as the White Sox very deep starting rotation.

Again I must be missing something because, last I checked, the Sox went from six -6- ML ready starters (last year) down to four -4- this year... one of whom (Vazquez) was completely useless after the 4th inning.

"Very deep starting rotation"...????

LoL... the Cubs had a "very deep" rotation last year too. Zambrano and 6 prospects / projects!

Granted, the 2007 White Sox aren't that bad; however outside of Buehrle (assuming a return-to-form season), Garland and Contreras, this rotation looks anything but "very deep". In fact, it looks downright suspect.

maurice
01-02-2007, 05:03 PM
Granted, the 2007 White Sox aren't that bad; however outside of Buehrle (assuming a return-to-form season), Garland and Contreras, this rotation looks anything but "very deep". In fact, it looks downright suspect.

Compared to what?

Contreras
Buehrle
Garland
Vazquez
Floyd
Danks
Sisco
Haeger
Broadway
Gonzalez
Phillips

That doesn't even include the guys who should start the year at AA.

Now compare this list to other MLB organizations . . . not to the 2006 Sox roster. Then please tell us how many organizations look "more deep" and "less suspect." Heck, most teams would love to have Contreras, Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez, and any one of the other 7 guys.

ChiSoxIn06
01-02-2007, 05:45 PM
who is the guy they drafted from texas last year and how far is he away from the pros?

soxwon
01-02-2007, 05:54 PM
Kenny Williams has announced
that the U.S. military has contacted him
inquiring about purchasing the SOX loaded Guns
the Danks-Floyd-Gonzalez-Aardsma-Sisco missiles.
Reportedly they heard, they fly UNDER THE RADAR

WHITE SOX WMD'S COMING TO A BALLPARK NEAR YOU....

The Dude
01-02-2007, 05:59 PM
Two quotes that stand out:

1) "I don't know if we've had this type of a mix of power and stuff and youth on our side, that could grow into championship caliber," added Williams of his relief crew.

"Could grow..." ?!?!?

I'm sorry, but I must have missed the memo because I thought the goal was to put together "championship caliber" THIS YEAR?

I guess one -1- World Series, record-breaking attendance/profits and a 90-win team is enough to justify why KW feels compelled to rebuild, rather than put together a championship caliber team in 2007.

**rolling eyes**


2) These plus arms join the right-handed tandem of closer Bobby Jenks and Mike MacDougal, providing almost as daunting of a challenge as the White Sox very deep starting rotation.

Again I must be missing something because, last I checked, the Sox went from six -6- ML ready starters (last year) down to four -4- this year... one of whom (Vazquez) was completely useless after the 4th inning.

"Very deep starting rotation"...????

LoL... the Cubs had a "very deep" rotation last year too. Zambrano and 6 prospects / projects!

Granted, the 2007 White Sox aren't that bad; however outside of Buehrle (assuming a return-to-form season), Garland and Contreras, this rotation looks anything but "very deep". In fact, it looks downright suspect.

:rolleyes:
You having 4 posts since feb 2005 is downright suspect with 50% of them bashing KW.:rolleyes:

itsnotrequired
01-02-2007, 06:15 PM
Kenny Williams has announced
that the U.S. military has contacted him
inquiring about purchasing the SOX loaded Guns
the Danks-Floyd-Gonzalez-Aardsma-Sisco missiles.
Reportedly they heard, they fly UNDER THE RADAR

WHITE SOX WMD'S COMING TO A BALLPARK NEAR YOU....

:hijacked:

Hey, what's with the wonky spacing in your posts? Are using a Blackberry or something?

:dunno:

soxwon
01-02-2007, 06:34 PM
:hijacked:

Hey, what's with the wonky spacing in your posts? Are using a Blackberry or something?

:dunno:

wonky spacing? you lost me!!!!
no blackberry here, im not in that century yet.
Still trying to figure out how to set up The New Pong game!!!

ssginc
01-03-2007, 12:21 AM
Compared to what?

Contreras
Buehrle
Garland
Vazquez
Floyd
Danks
Sisco
Haeger
Broadway
Gonzalez
Phillips

That doesn't even include the guys who should start the year at AA.

Now compare this list to other MLB organizations . . . not to the 2006 Sox roster. Then please tell us how many organizations look "more deep" and "less suspect." Heck, most teams would love to have Contreras, Buehrle, Garland, Vazquez, and any one of the other 7 guys.

Obviously you missed my point...

Is the goal to win NOW, or roll the dice (on prospects and projects) in the "hopes" of winning tomorrow... because all that "depth" does nothing to convince me KW had / has any plans of winning in 2007.

A return-to-form Buehrle (hopefully), Contreras and Garland... that's it insofar as "proven" depth. Vazquez...? Check his splits last year... completely useless after the 4th inning. The others?

?????????

Inotherwords, please don't list all those youngsters as if it means anything.

They are simply what they are: prospects and projects... just like the plethora of young arms that have come/gone throughout Sox history.

The "best young pitching staff in baseball"...

Ring a bell?

That (para)phrase has been used (in reference to Sox pitching) at least a half-dozen times in the 35 years that I've been a fan.

Where has it gotten them?

That said, I'd rather KW beef up the bullpen with "established" pitchers (of which there were a plethora available), dump the dead-weight in the rotation to a NL team (where Vazquez has been MUCH more effective) in return for "prospects", and make a serious run at the World Series THIS year.

Worst case scenario: Trade Garcia and/or McCarthy to a contender at the deadline, "if" it's clear the Sox have no chance of going all the way, OR stick it out all year and "roll the dice" on a (championship-caliber) team that would have had a serious shot at winning it all in 2007... and then rebuild NEXT offseason.

I mean, let's not pretend the Sox are some financially strapped organization with no prospects of their own, and no tradeable / marketable players for which to remain competitive in 2008 and beyond.

On the contrary, this was a young team even before the trades... with tons of cash to spend AND plenty of home-grown prospects waiting in the wings.

Bottom line, as has been noted many times by many others... the Sox ALWAYS put dollars and cents ahead of winning.

And if you have a problem with that statement, ask yourself why the Sox gave up on THE best pitching "prospect" to come out of this organization in years... a kid (McCarthy) who was coveted by numerous teams around baseball AND, as recent as a month ago, was considered untouchable in the Sox' eyes. Could it be that Brandon would be due for a HUGE pay raise soon, assuming as we ALL did, he developed into a stud?

Ask yourself why the GM of a 90-win team (that missed another run at a championship last season because of a weak bullpen and a fluke year from Buehrle) would fail to address that weak-link pen with "established" pitchers whom you can say with conviction will help the team win THIS year... not prospects / projects who "might" contribute.

Ask yourself why a team that saw record-breaking attendance figures (AND drew higher rating$ than the Cubs last year) is soooo concerned with cash.

Ask yourself why the Sox didn't even wait until "after" all the over-priced FA starters were signed BEFORE shopping a 17-W, 200-IP pitcher around to the first team standing in line. In such a pitching-scarce market, you don't think KW could have gotten ML ready talent (in return for a pitcher who owns a lifetime 62% W/L percentage) IF he had waited until after career .500 pitchers were netting 8-figure salaries ... don't think Garcia could have AT LEAST yielded an "established" arm in the bullpen for which to help the 2007 team win?

Ask yourself why KW chose to stick with Vazquez? Simple... at $12.5-mil (paid in part by Arizona) he's MUCH cheaper than what the Sox would end up paying Garcia and Buehrle (who will be gone as well).

Ask yourself if Dye and Crede will be back in a Sox uniform next season.

Lastly, ask yourself if 2005 was truly the result of KW genius (when he chose to trade Lee and cut loose Magg$)... or was that just a team that "caught lightening in a bottle"?

If you answer the latter, then keep your fingers crossed for "rain" because "hope" for the future is all that KW offseason moves have given Sox fans.

On the other hand if you answer the former, then you too (in general) "should" be wondering aloud why KW wasn't willing to tweak, essentially, the same nucleus that won the 2005 World Series in dominating fashion, and make another serious run this year.

After all, building a championship-caliber team isn't easy... and IMO the Sox could have had one in 2007. And I don't know about you, but I'd rather roll the dice on a "proven" team than "hope" we "might" be in this same position 2-3 years from now.

Flight #24
01-03-2007, 10:07 AM
Is the goal to win NOW, or roll the dice (on prospects and projects) in the "hopes" of winning tomorrow... Actually, as Kenny has said pretty blatantly - both.

Vazquez...? Check his splits last year... completely useless after the 4th inning.Really? I see 11 starts in Aug & Sep all of which lasted at least into the 6th, and only 2 of which involved him giving up more than 3ER (and one of those was 4ER). Please give me a lot more "useless" guys like him.



That said, I'd rather KW beef up the bullpen with "established" pitchers (of which there were a plethora available), dump the dead-weight in the rotation to a NL team (where Vazquez has been MUCH more effective) in return for "prospects", and make a serious run at the World Series THIS year.
Established guys like Cotts & Politte? Or from previous years like Guillermo Mota? Or maybe "established" guys like Octavio Dotel? Joe Borowski? Alan Embree (remember him last time around?)? How about a guy who put up a 3.11 ERA in 75IP a year ago? Is that "proven" enough for you (hint: Ayyyy Pancho!).

There's a ton of variability in relief pitchers, unless you go to guys like Rivera, who aren't available.

Worst case scenario: Trade Garcia and/or McCarthy to a contender at the deadline, "if" it's clear the Sox have no chance of going all the way, OR stick it out all year and "roll the dice" on a (championship-caliber) team that would have had a serious shot at winning it all in 2007... and then rebuild NEXT offseason.
Exactly how? Garcia & Buehrle would be gone (under your theory), so you wouldn't have any excess SPs to trade. So you'd go through a gut-rebuild, 80-win type of year in '08, which is exactly what KW's trying to avoid.

On the contrary, this was a young team even before the trades... with tons of cash to spend AND plenty of home-grown prospects waiting in the wings.

Youngsters like Konerko, Dye, Thome, Iguchi, AJ, Contreras, Garcia?:?: But I guess those aren't really "core" guys, are they?

Bottom line, as has been noted many times by many others... the Sox ALWAYS put dollars and cents ahead of winning.

And if you have a problem with that statement, ask yourself why the Sox gave up on THE best pitching "prospect" to come out of this organization in years... a kid (McCarthy) who was coveted by numerous teams around baseball AND, as recent as a month ago, was considered untouchable in the Sox' eyes. Could it be that Brandon would be due for a HUGE pay raise soon, assuming as we ALL did, he developed into a stud?

You really think KW traded Brandon because he would have been expensive....in 3-4 years? :rolleyes: I'm sure that if Danks pans out, he'll be equally expensive by then, or is your theory that the Sox are calling up teams and saying "I have this high-talent, cheap guy, I'll trade him to you for your low-talent cheap guy because that ensures I'll keep him cheaply!".

Not to mention that KW's actual statements have repeatedly included comments about payroll staying the same or increasing - something that's backed up by actually calculating the amount of money due to players.



Ask yourself why KW chose to stick with Vazquez? Simple... at $12.5-mil (paid in part by Arizona) he's MUCH cheaper than what the Sox would end up paying Garcia and Buehrle (who will be gone as well).

You do realize that Garcia would have been paid $10M, Buehrle IIRC $9.5M, and Vazquez after netting out the DBacks $$$ will get......$9.5M, right?

Ask yourself if KW's really focusing that much on saving $500K.
[/quote]

Obviously you missed my point...
Nope, I got it: :dtroll:

itsnotrequired
01-03-2007, 10:46 AM
Youngsters like Konerko, Dye, Thome, Iguchi, AJ, Contreras, Garcia?:?: But I guess those aren't really "core" guys, are they?

The weighted average age of the Sox batters in 2006 was 29.5. In the AL, only the Red Sox and Yankees were older. The weighted average age of the Sox pitchers in 2006 was 28.1. More middle of the pack.

letsgosox15
01-03-2007, 10:48 AM
and if you think about it if you take out anderson of that picture and put in a verteran center fielder like say Jaun Pierre since ozzie loves him that would of gone up alot in the average. probably by a year or 2

itsnotrequired
01-03-2007, 10:50 AM
and if you think about it if you take out anderson of that picture and put in a verteran center fielder like say Jaun Pierre since ozzie loves him that would of gone up alot in the average. probably by a year or 2

I wouldn't say a year or two, maybe a couple tenths. You would need a Julio Franco playing full time to bring the age up that much. Those age numbers I quoted are weighted so it takes into account playing time. True, Anderson is young but only played about 2/3rd of the season.

maurice
01-03-2007, 12:49 PM
Obviously you missed my point...

At no point during your long string of rambling rhetorical questions did you even come close to addressing MY point (or KW's point about depth). Here it is again:
Now compare this list to other MLB organizations . . . not to the 2006 Sox roster. Then please tell us how many organizations look "more deep" and "less suspect."

If you can identify multiple AL teams that have a rotation that is "more deep" and "less suspect," then consider whether they ALSO have a better bullpen and/or a better offense than the Sox. Until you can do this, I'll have to agree with Flight and Dude.

BigHurt35
01-03-2007, 01:01 PM
:rolleyes:
You having 4 posts since feb 2005 is downright suspect with 50% of them bashing KW.:rolleyes:

How does the amount of posts someone has mean anything? Granted I don't agree with what he was saying, but this mentality is stupid.

Someone doesn't come here every day, but feels like they have something to say so they post it, and they get bashed for not posting 20 messages every day.

Go look at my number of posts and bash me too, I come here when there is something interesting going on to get others opinions and occasionally share my own. Get a life nerd.

fquaye149
01-03-2007, 02:06 PM
How does the amount of posts someone has mean anything? Granted I don't agree with what he was saying, but this mentality is stupid.

Someone doesn't come here every day, but feels like they have something to say so they post it, and they get bashed for not posting 20 messages every day.

Go look at my number of posts and bash me too, I come here when there is something interesting going on to get others opinions and occasionally share my own. Get a life nerd.

The idea is he's been here for almost a year but all he ever does is post rips on Kenny...

I don't necessarily think that's a big deal...but I think the Dude's point was if all you have to add to the conversation in a year are a handful of ill advised rips of the GM who brought a WS championship
...maybe go back to lurking

stacksedwards
01-03-2007, 02:50 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Sisqo_unleash_the_dragon.jpg/220px-Sisqo_unleash_the_dragon.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sisqo_unleash_the_dragon.jpg)

He just wants to pitch

ssginc
01-03-2007, 05:05 PM
Actually, as Kenny has said pretty blatantly - both.

Of course that's what he "says"... what the hell do you think he's going to say?

I'm asking what YOU (in general) think... I'm not looking for the typical blind-loyalty rhetorical response.

Do you HONESTLY think KW downgraded the rotation AND put a band-aid over the most glaring weakness on the team (the bullpen) with the idea of winning a World Series in 2007... or with his eyes on the future?


Really? I see 11 starts in Aug & Sep all of which lasted at least into the 6th, and only 2 of which involved him giving up more than 3ER (and one of those was 4ER). Please give me a lot more "useless" guys like him.

Vazquez's 2006 inning-by-inning splits:

1st: 2.25 - ERA
2nd: 1.41
3rd: 5.34
4th: 1.69
5th: 7.39
6th: 10.33
7th: 9.58
8th: 6.75
9th: ---

As I said... completely useless after the 4th inning.


Established guys like Cotts & Politte? Or from previous years like Guillermo Mota? Or maybe "established" guys like Octavio Dotel? Joe Borowski? Alan Embree (remember him last time around?)? How about a guy who put up a 3.11 ERA in 75IP a year ago? Is that "proven" enough for you (hint: Ayyyy Pancho!).

How about Justin Speier, Chad Bradford, Baez, Foulke, Hernandez, Mesa, Hawkins, Romero, Merker...?

Inotherwords, LOTS of "established" arms to choose from... bullpen arms that could have helped the team win in 2007.


There's a ton of variability in relief pitchers, unless you go to guys like Rivera, who aren't available.

Fact is, there is variability in any position... but that doesn't mean you put a band-aid on your most glaring weakness and "hope" everything works out okay.

As Ozzie says... play the guys who give you the best chance of winning the ballgame. Likewise, I expect(ed) KW to acquire the guys who give the Sox the best chance of winning the World Series... in 2007.

Clearly he did not...


Exactly how? Garcia & Buehrle would be gone (under your theory), so you wouldn't have any excess SPs to trade. So you'd go through a gut-rebuild, 80-win type of year in '08, which is exactly what KW's trying to avoid.

My point was to KEEP Garcia, Buehrle and McCarthy, dump Vazquez for "prospects" and beef up the bullpen with "proven" ML ready pitchers (of which a plethora were / are available)... do that and, barring injuries, the Sox are major contenders for the World Series in 2007.

"If" for some reason they tank, the option would always be there to trade Garcia/McCarthy/Buehrle to a contender, and get some of those "prospects" the Sox seem to covet.

Further, the reason I think Buehrle will be gone is because, like Garcia, the Sox / KW aren't going to pay him market value (assuming he rebounds) when he becomes a FA. If they weren't tight wads, they would keep the nucleus of Buehrle/Garland/Garcia (who are all STILL in their primes) and have PROVEN "depth" in 2008 and beyond.


Youngsters like Konerko, Dye, Thome, Iguchi, AJ, Contreras, Garcia?:?: But I guess those aren't really "core" guys, are they?

Aside from Contreras and Thome, there isn't / wasn't a player on the roster who is on the downside of their career age-wise. The overwhelming majority of this team was/ is still in their prime... and the overwhelming majority of those players make up the same nucleus that won the WS in dominating fashion in 2005.

All the MORE reason to keep that "core" intact, tweak the roster and remain World Series competitve for another 2-3 years.

Why rebuild when the ability to win a WS is still there... that's akin to Krause prematurely dismantling the Bulls.


You really think KW traded Brandon because he would have been expensive....in 3-4 years?

Honestly, I think McCarthy was traded because he spoke out about wanting to be in the rotation... and we all know KW/ Reinsdorf don't like outspoken players.


Not to mention that KW's actual statements have repeatedly included comments about payroll staying the same or increasing - something that's backed up by actually calculating the amount of money due to players.

KW also sold us the goods about Brandon McCarthy being untouchable, did he not...?

Hence, more corporate rhetoric...


You do realize that Garcia would have been paid $10M, Buehrle IIRC $9.5M, and Vazquez after netting out the DBacks $$$ will get......$9.5M, right?

Ask yourself if KW's really focusing that much on saving $500K.

No, his moves were CLEARLY about saving MILLIONS next year and the year after... at the expense of making a serious run at the World Series THIS year.

ssginc
01-03-2007, 05:14 PM
At no point during your long string of rambling rhetorical questions did you even come close to addressing MY point (or KW's point about depth). Here it is again:


If you can identify multiple AL teams that have a rotation that is "more deep" and "less suspect," then consider whether they ALSO have a better bullpen and/or a better offense than the Sox. Until you can do this, I'll have to agree with Flight and Dude.

I addressed it... you obviously didn't read in between the lines.

By "depth", I'm talking about "proven" pitchers who can help the team win in 2007.

As stated previously, the Cubs had a ton of "depth" last season; unfortunately nobody outside of Zambrano (and Maddux to an extent) did SQUAT to help the team in 2006.

When you have a championship-caliber rotation (as the Sox DID with Buehrle/Garland/Contreras/Garcia), AND you are rolling in cash (as the Sox CLEARLY are), you do everything in your power to keep that nucleus intact.

What the hell do I care about "tomorrow" when I'm a couple moves away from winning TODAY?

ssginc
01-03-2007, 05:19 PM
The idea is he's been here for almost a year but all he ever does is post rips on Kenny...

I don't necessarily think that's a big deal...but I think the Dude's point was if all you have to add to the conversation in a year are a handful of ill advised rips of the GM who brought a WS championship
...maybe go back to lurking


Pardon me Oh Grand High Exhaulted Mystic Ruler of the Message Boards...

What's it to YOU how many posts I have...?


I'm a White Sox fan (for 35 years) who EXPECTS the team to put the BEST product on the field in an effort to win EVERY year... and IMO Kenny Williams' offseason moves don't reflect that same mindset.

You got a problem with that, fine... then speak your mind. Don't talk about how many posts I have / don't have because it is a moot point.

fquaye149
01-03-2007, 05:25 PM
Pardon me Oh Grand High Exhaulted Mystic Ruler of the Message Boards...

What's it to YOU how many posts I have...?


I'm a White Sox fan (for 35 years) who EXPECTS the team to put the BEST product on the field in an effort to win EVERY year... and IMO Kenny Williams' offseason moves don't reflect that same mindset.

You got a problem with that, fine... then speak your mind. Don't talk about how many posts I have / don't have because it is a moot point.

buddy, why don't you actually address the guy who made the comment?

I don't give a **** what you do, or how many times you posted. Based on what you've posted so far, I can't imagine 3000 posts would change the way I felt about you.

DumpJerry
01-03-2007, 05:33 PM
:rolleyes:
You having 4 posts since feb 2005 is downright suspect with 50% of them bashing KW.:rolleyes:
Well, that is not the suspect part of this person. He joined in Feb. '05 and as of right now has about 10 posts, including several long-winded ones today. Didn't something mildly exciting occur for White Sox fans between February, 2005 and today? More specifically in October, 2005?

Just curious.

fquaye149
01-03-2007, 05:38 PM
Really? I see 11 starts in Aug & Sep all of which lasted at least into the 6th, and only 2 of which involved him giving up more than 3ER (and one of those was 4ER). Please give me a lot more "useless" guys like him.

Vazquez's 2006 inning-by-inning splits:

1st: 2.25 - ERA
2nd: 1.41
3rd: 5.34
4th: 1.69
5th: 7.39
6th: 10.33
7th: 9.58
8th: 6.75
9th: ---

As I said... completely useless after the 4th inning.



And how on earth does that address the fact that he had a handful of good outings that lasted past the 4th inning?

Since when calculating "ERA by inning" every run given up is multiplied by nine, ERA is going to depend on outliers. Therefore it's not a really good indicator of whether Vazquez is "useless after the 4th inning." A better indicator would be "did he have any good outings that lasted past the 4th inning?" The answer seems to be "yes" and that seems to indicate that, unlike you said, he is not useless after the 4th inning.


Established guys like Cotts & Politte? Or from previous years like Guillermo Mota? Or maybe "established" guys like Octavio Dotel? Joe Borowski? Alan Embree (remember him last time around?)? How about a guy who put up a 3.11 ERA in 75IP a year ago? Is that "proven" enough for you (hint: Ayyyy Pancho!).

How about Justin Speier, Chad Bradford, Baez, Foulke, Hernandez, Mesa, Hawkins, Romero, Merker...?

Just to clarify, these are the guys you are pissed Kenny didn't get? Just want to make sure we're on the same page here...:rolleyes:


There's a ton of variability in relief pitchers, unless you go to guys like Rivera, who aren't available.

Fact is, there is variability in any position... but that doesn't mean you put a band-aid on your most glaring weakness and "hope" everything works out okay.

As Ozzie says... play the guys who give you the best chance of winning the ballgame. Likewise, I expect(ed) KW to acquire the guys who give the Sox the best chance of winning the World Series... in 2007.

Clearly he did not...
Don't divert attention from the issue. Ozzie's in game strategy has nothing to do with relative risks of acquisitions. Free agent relief pitching is one of the riskiest propositions in the free agent market and they very rarely pan out. That's the point.


Exactly how? Garcia & Buehrle would be gone (under your theory), so you wouldn't have any excess SPs to trade. So you'd go through a gut-rebuild, 80-win type of year in '08, which is exactly what KW's trying to avoid.

My point was to KEEP Garcia, Buehrle and McCarthy, dump Vazquez for "prospects" and beef up the bullpen with "proven" ML ready pitchers (of which a plethora were / are available)... do that and, barring injuries, the Sox are major contenders for the World Series in 2007.
Why don't you clarify exactly what you meant. I read your initial post the exact same way...so maybe we're missing something...


Further, the reason I think Buehrle will be gone is because, like Garcia, the Sox / KW aren't going to pay him market value (assuming he rebounds) when he becomes a FA. If they weren't tight wads, they would keep the nucleus of Buehrle/Garland/Garcia (who are all STILL in their primes) and have PROVEN "depth" in 2008 and beyond.

Buehrle will be gone because almost NO teams can resign their free agent pitchers. These days the only way to retain a pitcher is to extend him. Buehrle refused an extension last season. What more do you want Kenny to do?


Youngsters like Konerko, Dye, Thome, Iguchi, AJ, Contreras, Garcia?:?: But I guess those aren't really "core" guys, are they?

Aside from Contreras and Thome, there isn't / wasn't a player on the roster who is on the downside of their career age-wise. The overwhelming majority of this team was/ is still in their prime... and the overwhelming majority of those players make up the same nucleus that won the WS in dominating fashion in 2005.

All the MORE reason to keep that "core" intact, tweak the roster and remain World Series competitve for another 2-3 years.

Why rebuild when the ability to win a WS is still there... that's akin to Krause prematurely dismantling the Bulls.

The win now mentality is dangerous. If you can secure the future with minor downgrades (and even the downgrade issue is debatable) you're gonna save the REAL bitching in '08 when we have NO young talent ready to take over....

FA acquisitions is one of the worst largescale strategies for building and maintaining a contender. Look at CONSISTENT contenders---they build from the farm level up and use acquisitions to bolster their team. Examine our team's contract status---we are looking at a large scale turnover in 2 years. If you think the answer is to sign a lot of contracts, you're nuts.

Meanwhile, the win-now question also involves: do we REALLY have a chance to win it this year? Even WITH Garcia and McCarthy? And if we do or DID, is Garcia/McCarthy the difference? I doubt many would say they are, but if you do, that's your perogative.


You really think KW traded Brandon because he would have been expensive....in 3-4 years?

Honestly, I think McCarthy was traded because he spoke out about wanting to be in the rotation... and we all know KW/ Reinsdorf don't like outspoken players.
:rolleyes:


Not to mention that KW's actual statements have repeatedly included comments about payroll staying the same or increasing - something that's backed up by actually calculating the amount of money due to players.

KW also sold us the goods about Brandon McCarthy being untouchable, did he not...?

Hence, more corporate rhetoric...

a.) KW never said untouchable

b.) he said Brandon was not going anywhere at the time. Even the extreme classification of untouchable never has and never will mean "this player will never ever ever be traded ever". "Brandon's not going anywhere" said at the trade deadline last year certainly doesn't mean "we're definitely not going to trade him during the offseason"

I swear, some people get more nuts about this **** than ufo conspiracy theorists.


You do realize that Garcia would have been paid $10M, Buehrle IIRC $9.5M, and Vazquez after netting out the DBacks $$$ will get......$9.5M, right?

Ask yourself if KW's really focusing that much on saving $500K.

No, his moves were CLEARLY about saving MILLIONS next year and the year after... at the expense of making a serious run at the World Series THIS year.

How on earth is that clear?

itsnotrequired
01-03-2007, 06:05 PM
Really? I see 11 starts in Aug & Sep all of which lasted at least into the 6th, and only 2 of which involved him giving up more than 3ER (and one of those was 4ER). Please give me a lot more "useless" guys like him.

Vazquez's 2006 inning-by-inning splits:

1st: 2.25 - ERA
2nd: 1.41
3rd: 5.34
4th: 1.69
5th: 7.39
6th: 10.33
7th: 9.58
8th: 6.75
9th: ---

As I said... completely useless after the 4th inning.

No doubt Vazquez had his troubles but his August and September were pretty darn good, which was what he was pointing out. In his 11 starts in August and September, he pitched an average of over 6.5 innings, had an ERA of 3.61, averaged over 7 strikeouts and averaged 2 walks.

Seems pretty good to me...

ssginc
01-03-2007, 07:28 PM
buddy, why don't you actually address the guy who made the comment?

My apologies for the oversight...

maurice
01-04-2007, 01:17 PM
I addressed it... you obviously didn't read in between the lines.

I see . . . I couldn't find your list of multiple AL teams that have a rotation that is "more deep" and "less suspect" than the Sox, because it was hidden "between the lines." Why don't you just do us all the big favor of listing them on one of the lines instead of between them. You certainlty have no probelm cranking out massive posts that ignore this issue.

When you have a championship-caliber rotation (as the Sox DID with Buehrle/Garland/Contreras/Garcia), AND you are rolling in cash (as the Sox CLEARLY are), you do everything in your power to keep that nucleus intact.

The Sox STILL HAVE Buehrle and Garland and Contreras. There is plenty of reason to believe that Garcia is on the downside of his career and will suck in 2007.

Again, the 2007 Sox do not have to defeat the 2005 Sox or the 2006 Sox to get back to the WS. They just have to defeat the other teams in the AL. By refusing to address this issue, you essentially are conceding that the other AL teams are worse, but bitching about it anyway.
:rolleyes:

maurice
01-04-2007, 01:22 PM
Just to clarify, these are the guys you are pissed Kenny didn't get? Just want to make sure we're on the same page here...:rolleyes:

You gotta love all the indignation that KW didn't spend big or make certain acquisitions this offseason. Whenever the whiners are asked to name names, you either get silence or a list of guys who suck.

Flight #24
01-04-2007, 01:48 PM
OK, it's useful for you to actually respond to the comments rather than making somewhat unrelated ones, unless you're just trying to rant, which appears to be the case.

Do you HONESTLY think KW downgraded the rotation AND put a band-aid over the most glaring weakness on the team (the bullpen) with the idea of winning a World Series in 2007... or with his eyes on the future?
I think he's trying to do both. You seem to think he should sacrifice any future improvement for some mythical current improvement (although you don't really mention any actual possible moves that would have done that).



Vazquez's 2006 inning-by-inning splits:

1st: 2.25 - ERA
2nd: 1.41
3rd: 5.34
4th: 1.69
5th: 7.39
6th: 10.33
7th: 9.58
8th: 6.75
9th: ---

As I said... completely useless after the 4th inning.
Meaningless usage of available statistics. Yes, Vazquez sucked in the early part of the year. But as I pointed out, he pitched fairly well in the second half. You're using averages that ignore that. Re-run your stats to break out 1st & 2d half ERA by inning and you'll get a far far different answer. As was expected by most reasonable people, it took a bit of time for Javy to "gel" under Coop, but he did and the problems you are so sure will continue were pretty much resolved after the break.




How about Justin Speier, Chad Bradford, Baez, Foulke, Hernandez, Mesa, Hawkins, Romero, Merker...?

Inotherwords, LOTS of "established" arms to choose from... bullpen arms that could have helped the team win in 2007. Keith Foulke? Jose Mesa? LaTroy Hawkins? These are the "established" guys you want? Do you realize that they have each had ridiculously bad years within the past 2? Yet somehow they're vastly superior and more reliable than say Andy Sisco, who's a year removed from a pretty good one and is in a far better position to improve than any of the guys you listed? About the only name on that list I'd have liked is Speier, and he got a pretty big deal.



My point was to KEEP Garcia, Buehrle and McCarthy, dump Vazquez for "prospects" and beef up the bullpen with "proven" ML ready pitchers (of which a plethora were / are available)... do that and, barring injuries, the Sox are major contenders for the World Series in 2007.

"If" for some reason they tank, the option would always be there to trade Garcia/McCarthy/Buehrle to a contender, and get some of those "prospects" the Sox seem to covet. OK, so Vazquez sucks....but he'll somehow bring us great prospects. And again - you're happy to minimize the return you'd get on some of these guys in order to provide whatever the "improvement" is that you expect from keeping one of them over Javy (which only works if you ignore his 2d half).:rolleyes:

Further, the reason I think Buehrle will be gone is because, like Garcia, the Sox / KW aren't going to pay him market value (assuming he rebounds) when he becomes a FA. If they weren't tight wads, they would keep the nucleus of Buehrle/Garland/Garcia (who are all STILL in their primes) and have PROVEN "depth" in 2008 and beyond.When in doubt, play the "JR is cheap" card. Well done. Ignore the fact that 2007 payroll > 2006 payroll > 2005 payroll. They're cheap because they don't resign everyone to whatever they want and go out and add more guys!

Aside from Contreras and Thome, there isn't / wasn't a player on the roster who is on the downside of their career age-wise. The overwhelming majority of this team was/ is still in their prime... and the overwhelming majority of those players make up the same nucleus that won the WS in dominating fashion in 2005.

All the MORE reason to keep that "core" intact, tweak the roster and remain World Series competitve for another 2-3 years.

Why rebuild when the ability to win a WS is still there... that's akin to Krause prematurely dismantling the Bulls.
You act as if they dismantled the Sox. They didn't. The team from '07 is going to be the exact same with 2 changes: Someone replacing McCarthy in the 'pen (and he was not that irreplaceable as a reliever in 2006), and someone replacing Garcia in the rotation. That's it!

You also miss Kenny's exact point: He doesn't want to go through a "real" rebuilding. He wants to compete for a title EVERY year. That's obviously what you just don't get.




Honestly, I think McCarthy was traded because he spoke out about wanting to be in the rotation... and we all know KW/ Reinsdorf don't like outspoken players.Phil - is that you? I guess you never heard of a guy named Ozzie Guillen. Or a guy named Paul Konerko, whose comments on teammates have been a plenty. This is based on zero actual fact.


Not to mention that KW's actual statements have repeatedly included comments about payroll staying the same or increasing - something that's backed up by actually calculating the amount of money due to players.

KW also sold us the goods about Brandon McCarthy being untouchable, did he not...?

Hence, more corporate rhetoric... Way to ignore the fact-based part of the response. The actual payroll is going up. Statement + Fact is far more reliable than statement alone or in your case than pure conjecture.


You do realize that Garcia would have been paid $10M, Buehrle IIRC $9.5M, and Vazquez after netting out the DBacks $$$ will get......$9.5M, right?

Ask yourself if KW's really focusing that much on saving $500K.

No, his moves were CLEARLY about saving MILLIONS next year and the year after... at the expense of making a serious run at the World Series THIS year.

Ummm......he could have saved the exact same $$$ by keeping them, letting Freddy & Mark walk after '07, and saving the same $$$ in future years. Try again. These moves were made to make sure that if they did walk, the Sox would be in better position to compete in '08. And as already noted, the only real change to their competitiveness for '07 is in whatever difference there is between Freddy/McCarthy and whoever ends up the #5. And there's not really a salary savings component or a "trade now for the future" component on that when you compare whoever it ends up being to McCarthy. It's prety obivous that that trade is simply a question of KW thinking Danks/Masset are better than Brandon.

ssginc
01-04-2007, 08:07 PM
I think he's trying to do both. You seem to think he should sacrifice any future improvement for some mythical current improvement (although you don't really mention any actual possible moves that would have done that).


"Mythical" current improvement...???

LMAO... sure, keeping a Championship-caliber rotation intact and adding a couple "proven" arms to the pen is really asking for the impossible.

:rolleyes:

And FWIW... YES, I would rather roll the dice and "go for it all" in 2007 than trade a 17-game winner and a coveted youngster for pitchers who "might" be productive in the future.

For every Danks, Gio and Masset there's a Jason Bere, Wilson Alvarez, Richard Dotson, Britt Burns, Jon Rauch, Kip Wells, Danny Wright, Scott Ruffcorn etc, etc, etc to suggest that WHEN your team is in position to win it all, you GO FOR IT...!

As for the "moves", I've already addressed what I would have preferred: Keep Garcia and McCarthy, add some "proven" depth to the bullpen, and trade Vazquez to a NL team (where his value would be higher since he's been MUCH more effective).

Again... is that asking the impossible?

I don't believe so... but I DO believe that these moves would have given the Sox the best chance of winning the WS in 2007 (certainly a MUCH better shot than they have now).


Meaningless usage of available statistics. Yes, Vazquez sucked in the early part of the year. But as I pointed out, he pitched fairly well in the second half. You're using averages that ignore that. Re-run your stats to break out 1st & 2d half ERA by inning and you'll get a far far different answer. As was expected by most reasonable people, it took a bit of time for Javy to "gel" under Coop, but he did and the problems you are so sure will continue were pretty much resolved after the break.


Really?

Pre AS: 5.07-ERA, 17-Starts. 8-Quality Starts
Post AS: 4.58-ERA, 15-Starts, 6-Quality Starts


Keith Foulke? Jose Mesa? LaTroy Hawkins?


LoL...

I list 9 guys (withOut fully researching ALL the "established" relief pitchers available) to make a point... and you focus on three guys to support an argument that UNproven rookies and projects are the BEST option for which to improve the most glaring weakness on the team in an effort to win a WS in 2007.

And of course the guy you DO like got a "pretty big deal" from another team... so needless to say KW should have never con$idered him, eh?

Nicely done... not!


OK, so Vazquez sucks....but he'll somehow bring us great prospects. And again - you're happy to minimize the return you'd get on some of these guys in order to provide whatever the "improvement" is that you expect from keeping one of them over Javy (which only works if you ignore his 2d half).:rolleyes:

I just illustrated Javier's supposed "improvement" in the second-half... overall it was marginal AT BEST. So let's stop arguing that point because it doesn't exist... unless you think that his performance in September is a guarantee that Javier will pitch like that all year (in 2007)? Hell, he was "hot" to start off 2006 as well... what happened?

Also, you seem to forget that Vazquez is now our #4 starter... big difference between a 4th and 5th starter WHEN the other 4 guys led you to a World Series, and ESPECIALLY since the 2007 White Sox don't even have a 5th starter!

And like I said, Vazquez has been a MUCH better pitcher in the NL... you don't think we could have landed at least one proven bullpen arm, or at least a couple of those (unproven) prospects you folks seem to covet?

Hell, the Cubs, just as an "example", were desperate for starting pitching... you think they might have considered parting with Howry or Eyre (and cash/prospects)?

Or do you feel Bobby and Scott are washed up veterans too... much higher risks than the projects and prospects KW picked up?

Just something to think about... that being, "proven" bullpen help WAS out there for KW to secure.


When in doubt, play the "JR is cheap" card. Well done. Ignore the fact that 2007 payroll > 2006 payroll > 2005 payroll. They're cheap because they don't resign everyone to whatever they want and go out and add more guys!

Who is in doubt...?

You telling me the Garcia trade wasn't a salary dump, knowing full well the Sox weren't going to re-sign him next year? Further, if KW was serious about winning in 2007 he would have at least waiting until all the "coveted" FA starters were off the market and THEN dangle Garcia, when he would have had much more leverage to obtain established talent in return.

And do you honestly think Crede (with Boras as his agent) and Dye (who will demand HUGE bucks if he has another year like the last two) will be back?

Buehrle...? I GUARANTEE you he'll be gone by the deadline if his numbers are back to normal... and I DOUBLE guarantee he's gone if the Sox are out of the race.

And don't take what I'm saying out of context. I'm not suggesting the Sox spend just to spend. But what the hell is wrong with a $150-million payroll (to maintain the nucleus of a team that won the WS in 2005) IF you can afford it (the Sox CLEARLY can) and IF it means the team will remain (World Series) competitive for the next 5 years?

Where did all those "can't miss" young pitchers get the Sox in the early 80's, 90's and 00's...?


You act as if they dismantled the Sox. They didn't. The team from '07 is going to be the exact same with 2 changes: Someone replacing McCarthy in the 'pen (and he was not that irreplaceable as a reliever in 2006), and someone replacing Garcia in the rotation. That's it!

That's it, eh?

The 2006 bullpen was horrid... the 2007 pen is highly suspect AT BEST.

Our rotation lost a 200-IP, 17-game winner... a guy with a "career" W/L mark of 62% (65% in 2006). Who is going to replace those numbers in 2007?

Vazquez?

LMAO

And what about our 5th starter... or is that no big deal either?

"That's it", eh? A a 4-deep rotation (3.5 really) and a patched-up bullpen is hardly cause for concern, right... especially in the toughest division in baseball.


You also miss Kenny's exact point: He doesn't want to go through a "real" rebuilding. He wants to compete for a title EVERY year. That's obviously what you just don't get.

And you (and others) don't get the fact that he doesn't have to go through a "real" rebuilding mode. The Sox are operating with record-breaking profit$ for which they certainly "could" re-sign the soon-to-be-gone "core" (and/or sign an impact FA or two), as well as plenty of home-grown prospects. So there's no reason to think they can't remain competitive in the future.

Further, do you honestly think the Sox, as they currently stand, are good enough to compete for the WS in 2007, or even the Central for that matter... with a weaker rotation AND (at best) a suspect bullpen?

And are you really expecting the Sox to compete for the World Series in 2008/09, with Buehrle, Crede and Dye likely gone and replaced by MORE prospects/projects?

Sounds like a pipedream to me... or at best, a HUGE gamble.


Phil - is that you? I guess you never heard of a guy named Ozzie Guillen. Or a guy named Paul Konerko, whose comments on teammates have been a plenty. This is based on zero actual fact.


You're probably correct. So tell me then... why did the Sox trade the most prized pitcher to come out of the organization in years, a kid whom the Sox promoted as the best thing since sliced bread, and someone who was coveted by GM's across baseball?

KW thinks it's because Danks and Masset have a higher ceiling... and you believe him (just as I'm sure you believed the Sox as they were pushing McCarthy to the moon for 2 years).

So be it...

But I have to wonder... why would the Phillies get rid of TWO "can't miss" prospects (to hear KW and some of you tell it) in return for just one -1- kid with less potential?


Way to ignore the fact-based part of the response. The actual payroll is going up. Statement + Fact is far more reliable than statement alone or in your case than pure conjecture.

Sure... going "up" simply because current guys are owed more money in 2007. The increase has NOTHING to do with KW commitment to put the BEST product on the field in 2007, and everything to do with managing a budget that is LESS than it should be for a team that has seen record-breaking profits over the past two years combined.

And next year, with Garcia (Buehrle, Crede and Dye most likely) out of the picture, payroll will be significantly reduced.

But hey... we'll have all these prospects for which to remain competitive, right?

:rolleyes:

maurice
01-04-2007, 09:14 PM
I'm sorry I couldn't wade through all of that, but this caught my eye:
For every Danks, Gio and Masset there's a Jason Bere, Wilson Alvarez, Richard Dotson, Britt Burns . . . .

I'm not sure what this means, but Jason Bere was awesome during his first two years in the league at a very young age. The same was true of Alvarez and Burns, once they moved them into the rotation. Dotson was a servicable starter in his youth, and then won 22 games for us at age 24.

If Danks, Gonzalez, and/or Masset do anything like that in 2007, the Sox will be great.

Flight #24
01-04-2007, 10:27 PM
Saving space by not quoting, your rant seems to focus on a few simple, but incorrect "arguments".

1) Sisco, Aardsma are less "reliable" and "proven" than Foulke, etc. Despite each of them having a better year in at least one of the last 2 than most if not all of the guys you mention. Aardsma put up a 4.08 ERA, Sisco's a year removed from a 3.11. Both are young. The guys you listed are for the most part pretty variable. What you call "proven" seems much more to be "older and coming off a good year" (i.e. Cotts & Politte).

2) Vazquez sucks because his averages are poor. Which completely ignores what many averages do: extremes within the data set that skew things. So your post-ASB #s actually consist of a horrid 6.8 ERA in July followed by some pretty good numbers of 3.41 and 3.82 in August & September. Again, completely consistent with what should have been expected: Struggling until he internalized the coaching.

3) The Sox should have a $150M payroll. Despite the fact that there was only 1 team in all of baseball that had that in '06, and there will be maybe 2 that do it in '07. All from a team that's got about the same accessible market as the Houston Astros but was the #4 payroll in all of baseball last year. Oh yeah, and Hangar18 wants his math book back. You know, the one where just because payroll'07 > payroll'06, it's actually a decrease. The rest of us use these goofy things called "numerical" comparisons.

But my absolute favorite part is this one:


You telling me the Garcia trade wasn't a salary dump, knowing full well the Sox weren't going to re-sign him next year? Further, if KW was serious about winning in 2007 he would have at least waiting until all the "coveted" FA starters were off the market and THEN dangle Garcia, when he would have had much more leverage to obtain established talent in return.

So KW traded Freddy early because he wanted less in return? Because if your statement is to be believed, at the very least he might have gottn more in the way of prospects by waiting, no? Which kind of means at least he thinks he got a good deal. I actually agree with you that I think he could have got more by waiting, but that's certainly no indication that they were trying to dump '07 for '08 & beyond.

And the McCarthy trade HAS to be value-driven. Because were you dumping for the future, Brandon's exactly the guy you hold on to, especially if you think you're replacing all the vet starters. Danks being higher-risk/higher-upside only works if you're pretty sure you have your other rotation slots covered. Otherwise, you need to make sure you have at least solid SPs, which means you hold onto Brandon. Especially since they're both equally cheap for a while.

ondafarm
01-04-2007, 11:10 PM
Not wading thru your rant, but here's a line,

[quote]Further, do you honestly think the Sox, as they currently stand, are good enough to compete for the WS in 2007, or even the Central for that matter... with a weaker rotation AND (at best) a suspect bullpen?[\quote]

Honestly yes and I don't accept either of your stated positions here. The rotation should be stronger with a good battle for the 5th spot and the possibility of should two guys do devastatingly well, maybe even the #4 spot being open for business. Plus, you are neglecting that MB, JV and JC all should have significantly better years than last year. Plus, my 70-year-old mother can hold runners on better than Freddy Garcia.

I do not consider the bullpen at all suspect. It's full of hard throwing guys coming from both the left and the right. I'd rate it ahead of even Minnesota's.

caulfield12
01-04-2007, 11:25 PM
Not wading thru your rant, but here's a line,

[quote]Further, do you honestly think the Sox, as they currently stand, are good enough to compete for the WS in 2007, or even the Central for that matter... with a weaker rotation AND (at best) a suspect bullpen?[\quote]

Honestly yes and I don't accept either of your stated positions here. The rotation should be stronger with a good battle for the 5th spot and the possibility of should two guys do devastatingly well, maybe even the #4 spot being open for business. Plus, you are neglecting that MB, JV and JC all should have significantly better years than last year. Plus, my 70-year-old mother can hold runners on better than Freddy Garcia.

I do not consider the bullpen at all suspect. It's full of hard throwing guys coming from both the left and the right. I'd rate it ahead of even Minnesota's.

On paper, our bullpen MIGHT be better...but there's no way you take Jenks over Nathan, especially the way Jenks slumped a little in the second half, battled injury problems, being out of shape, his hip....consistently 2-3 MPH slower with his fastball than 2005.

Granted, Reyes and Neshek aren't LIKELY to repeat, but they still have Rincon and Crain, who are definitely comparable with MacDougal and Aardsma.

I would have to give MIN the slight edge based on Nathan and their quality of depth (Perkins also did well down the stretch)....and their experience level, which is higher than ours.

ondafarm
01-05-2007, 12:20 AM
[quote=ondafarm;1455363]Not wading thru your rant, but here's a line,



On paper, our bullpen MIGHT be better...but there's no way you take Jenks over Nathan, especially the way Jenks slumped a little in the second half, battled injury problems, being out of shape, his hip....consistently 2-3 MPH slower with his fastball than 2005.

Granted, Reyes and Neshek aren't LIKELY to repeat, but they still have Rincon and Crain, who are definitely comparable with MacDougal and Aardsma.

I would have to give MIN the slight edge based on Nathan and their quality of depth (Perkins also did well down the stretch)....and their experience level, which is higher than ours.

Only Reyes and Nathan are nearly as effective on the road as at home. When your home is the Metrodome with a very poor hitting backdrop, that means the Twinkies survive on decent relief pitching which looks great because they have a wacky park. Jenks is reportedly preparing to show up in great shape (his job is on the line) and the young guns the Sox have acquired should form a deadly pen. I stand by my call.

VenturaIsAGod
01-05-2007, 01:04 AM
I'm going to semi-side with ssginc on this one for the sake of argument, and because he seems a little too riled up to make calm and rational statements (no offense). Here is where I do agree with him:

-Javy has a tendency to suck. I don't care about any numbers you can show me, how many times were you watching him cruise through the first 3-4 innings and just KNOW that he'd blow up in the 5th or 6th.

-The Sox have a tendency to be cheap. I don't understand why we, as the fans, would ever buy into the idea that we just can't spend money the way "the big teams" spend it. My guess is, and I don't have a way to prove it, we were in the top half-dozen teams in earnings last year. Just off the top of my head, the two NY teams and the Red Sox always make the most, then maybe the Cubs, but you have to see us right up there as well with the next tier teams. When every other team's salaries are flying up, I don't buy the argument that we're not cheap because ours is stagnant or SLIGHTLY rising. To be clear, I'm not saying our payroll is near the bottom of the league, I'm just saying that it should be moving up like everyone else's. Also, to be clear, I don't mean EVERYONE, so don't yell at me and give me examples of teams that haven't raised their payroll considerably. Most competitive teams have tried to add talent through free agency, some with less success (Angels, Mets...). We didn't necessarily need to go through free agency, but we have guys of our own that we shouldn't lose just because "we can't spend like other teams". I can't buy into that.

-Our rotation was more of a sure thing before the trades. Obviously, no one is denying this, but it's important to realize that this will more than likely cost us a few wins THIS year, which means a lot for a team that finished 3rd a year ago. I know we're all banking on a "return to normalcy" of 2005, but it's far from a sure thing.




Be that as it may, I DO think our bullpen is improved, and no one can question that our future outlook is imroved. But if we go through this this year with the pitchers, then we'll have to do it in a year or so with the hitters, and we'll always be talking about our great future outlook.

Also, please don't yell at me because of my low post-count. If you look through my posts, you'll see they were mostly optimistic/positive, as this one is at its heart.


EDIT: To at least somewhat stay on topic, I think Kenny is just keeping Sisco happy by saying he'll have a shot to start. Realistically, we need him as a lefty reliever, and unless he absolutely dominates as a starter, he'll be in the pen.

caulfield12
01-05-2007, 05:33 AM
The point with this White Sox version wasn't you don't go out and get FA's. It's just that you don't spend wildly and overextend yourself.

When you think about it, we only developed Rowand, Crede and Buehrle...almost every single player on the 2005 was acquired through trade or FA acquisition.

The White Sox did use their very solid farm system from 2000-01 to get some of the pieces, however (including dumping Maggs and C-Lee to free up resources)...

Iguchi
Dye
Hermanson
AJ
El Duque
Pods deal (+Vizcaino)
Takatsu (while he was good)
Jenks

That was 32% of our roster right there (almost 1/3rd), and all of those guys had reasonable contracts or below "market value," with the exception of El Duque, whose contract once again seems like a bargain!

It's a misnomer that the White Sox don't sign FA's...it's just that they rarely spend lots of money or make "flashy" signings in the market.

There's nothing wrong with that. The White Sox were in the Top 2/3 in spending on their starting rotation, yet we're somehow cheap? The thing is, we didn't get enough Return on Investment with that money in 2006, so KW somewhat reallocated it and moved some assets around. We're better positioned for the future and, at worst, in the same position we were entering 2006.

Flight #24
01-05-2007, 09:55 AM
Because it seems to be such a source of concern for some, Javy Vazquez August & September starts:

8/5 (TOR): 8IP / 1ER
8/10 (NYY): 5IP / 2ER
8/15 (KC): 5.1IP / 3ER
8/20 (MIN): 7IP / 4ER
8/25 (MIN): 5.2IP / 2ER
8/31 (TB): 6IP / 2ER
9/5 (BOS): 8IP / 1ER
9/10: (CLE): 7IP / 2ER
9/16 (OAK): 6IP / 3ER
9/21 (SEA): 7.1IP / 3ER
9/26 (CLE): 7IP / 6ER

That's a pretty good stretch of pitching, and it's a major reason why his ERA was in the mid-3s over this period. It's pretty clear that he licked the "6th inning blues" or the "useless past the 4th" for a pretty significant stretch.

As for payroll, last year the Sox were 4th in MLB, behind the Yanks, Boston, Angels. So far, the teams that look like they've passed them up are the Cubs, Dodgers and maybe the Mets. Other teams spending big $$$ either were significantly lower in payroll to begin with (Texas, Baltimore), or shed some huge contracts prior to making their signings (Houston). Hell - even Toronto with the Wells contract will have a lower payroll than the Sox in '07.

itsnotrequired
01-05-2007, 10:48 AM
Because it seems to be such a source of concern for some, Javy Vazquez August & September starts:

8/5 (TOR): 8IP / 1ER
8/10 (NYY): 5IP / 2ER
8/15 (KC): 5.1IP / 3ER
8/20 (MIN): 7IP / 4ER
8/25 (MIN): 5.2IP / 2ER
8/31 (TB): 6IP / 2ER
9/5 (BOS): 8IP / 1ER
9/10: (CLE): 7IP / 2ER
9/16 (OAK): 6IP / 3ER
9/21 (SEA): 7.1IP / 3ER
9/26 (CLE): 7IP / 6ER

That's a pretty good stretch of pitching, and it's a major reason why his ERA was in the mid-3s over this period. It's pretty clear that he licked the "6th inning blues" or the "useless past the 4th" for a pretty significant stretch.

As for payroll, last year the Sox were 4th in MLB, behind the Yanks, Boston, Angels. So far, the teams that look like they've passed them up are the Cubs, Dodgers and maybe the Mets. Other teams spending big $$$ either were significantly lower in payroll to begin with (Texas, Baltimore), or shed some huge contracts prior to making their signings (Houston). Hell - even Toronto with the Wells contract will have a lower payroll than the Sox in '07.

You should also throw in his September strikeouts. He struck out as many guys in his 5 September starts as his 11 July and August starts combined.

Hitmen77
01-05-2007, 11:22 AM
-Our rotation was more of a sure thing before the trades. Obviously, no one is denying this, but it's important to realize that this will more than likely cost us a few wins THIS year, which means a lot for a team that finished 3rd a year ago. I know we're all banking on a "return to normalcy" of 2005, but it's far from a sure thing.


I agree - having Floyd and Haegar competing for the 5th starter spot is a bigger question mark that sticking with either B- Mac or Freddy. I think KW is trying to balance still winning in '07 and continuing to be competitive in the future. We have to give up something to get something and my guess is that he felt that we could absorb the near term uncertainty for the 5th starter in exchange for more stability long term. Will this work? - we'll find out in October. Without the benefit of hindsight, I'm supportive of KW's strategy.

That being said, i'm not saying that Brandon and Freddy are guaranteed to have great seasons next year. Both struggled in 07. Likewise, I have to believe - based on his past comments about not wanting to repeat the 5th starter fiasco of a few years ago - that KW and the Sox scouts have a certain degree of confidence in at least one of the candidates as a 5th starter.

I'm really curious about what the Sox see in Floyd. KW rightfully says that they don't scout players strictly on numbers. Still, from an outsider like me who only has numbers to look at, Floyd doesn't look very impressive. If I'm not mistaken, even his Fall League numbers weren't so great.

I think the real keys to these deals are Gio and Danks for 2008 and beyond.

Hitmen77
01-05-2007, 11:33 AM
-The Sox have a tendency to be cheap. I don't understand why we, as the fans, would ever buy into the idea that we just can't spend money the way "the big teams" spend it. My guess is, and I don't have a way to prove it, we were in the top half-dozen teams in earnings last year. Just off the top of my head, the two NY teams and the Red Sox always make the most, then maybe the Cubs, but you have to see us right up there as well with the next tier teams. When every other team's salaries are flying up, I don't buy the argument that we're not cheap because ours is stagnant or SLIGHTLY rising. To be clear, I'm not saying our payroll is near the bottom of the league, I'm just saying that it should be moving up like everyone else's. Also, to be clear, I don't mean EVERYONE, so don't yell at me and give me examples of teams that haven't raised their payroll considerably. Most competitive teams have tried to add talent through free agency, some with less success (Angels, Mets...). We didn't necessarily need to go through free agency, but we have guys of our own that we shouldn't lose just because "we can't spend like other teams". I can't buy into that.


As for payroll, last year the Sox were 4th in MLB, behind the Yanks, Boston, Angels. So far, the teams that look like they've passed them up are the Cubs, Dodgers and maybe the Mets. Other teams spending big $$$ either were significantly lower in payroll to begin with (Texas, Baltimore), or shed some huge contracts prior to making their signings (Houston). Hell - even Toronto with the Wells contract will have a lower payroll than the Sox in '07.

I think Flight hit it right on the head. In '06, the only teams with a higher payroll than the Sox also have higher revenues. I haven't seen the numbers, but I'm guessing the same will hold true in '07.

itsnotrequired
01-05-2007, 12:01 PM
Hell - even Toronto with the Wells contract will have a lower payroll than the Sox in '07.

That's because KW has a history of signing long-term, big-dollar contracts to overvalued players.

brucefan34
01-05-2007, 12:21 PM
Kenny Williams has announced
that the U.S. military has contacted him
inquiring about purchasing the SOX loaded Guns
the Danks-Floyd-Gonzalez-Aardsma-Sisco missiles.
Reportedly they heard, they fly UNDER THE RADAR

WHITE SOX WMD'S COMING TO A BALLPARK NEAR YOU....


I Love that!

"CHICAGO'S WMD"

Flight #24
01-05-2007, 12:52 PM
By the way, in terms of reviewing the Sox bullpen, it might be useful to recognize that pretty every title contender has their share of retreads and/or unknowns in the 'pen. This would include:

The vaunted Boston "throwing money around like water" Red Sox:
Joel Pineiro, Brendan Donnelly, J.C. Romero, Hideki Okajima, Mike Timlin, Manny Delcarmen, Julian Tavarez - Yup, pretty much the whole damn bullpen sucks.

The "spare no expense: Yankees:
Some combination of Kyle Farnsworth, Luis Vizcaino, Jeff Karstens, Darrell Rasner and possibly "marquee free agent signee" Kei Igawa

The "free-spending" Toronto Blue Jays:
Scott Downs, Dustin McGowan, Brian Tallet, Brandon League, Jeremy Accardo


The Detroit ****ing Tigers:
Todd Jones, Jose Mesa, Fernando Rodney, Andrew Miller, Roman Colon

caulfield12
01-05-2007, 12:58 PM
By the way, in terms of reviewing the Sox bullpen, it might be useful to recognize that pretty every title contender has their share of retreads and/or unknowns in the 'pen. This would include:

The vaunted Boston "throwing money around like water" Red Sox:
Joel Pineiro, Brendan Donnelly, J.C. Romero, Hideki Okajima, Mike Timlin, Manny Delcarmen, Julian Tavarez - Yup, pretty much the whole damn bullpen sucks.

The "spare no expense: Yankees:
Some combination of Kyle Farnsworth, Luis Vizcaino, Jeff Karstens, Darrell Rasner and possibly "marquee free agent signee" Kei Igawa

The "free-spending" Toronto Blue Jays:
Scott Downs, Dustin McGowan, Brian Tallet, Brandon League, Jeremy Accardo


The Detroit ****ing Tigers:
Todd Jones, Jose Mesa, Fernando Rodney, Andrew Miller, Roman Colon

The Tigers also have Grilli and probably the LH Rule 5 pick from the Cubs, or possibly Zach Miner