PDA

View Full Version : McCarthy = future ace?!


CHIsoxNation
02-21-2007, 09:54 AM
I was really shocked at how much Texas is talking up Brandon down there. They make it sound like they pulled a major fast one on us. Time will tell I guess...


"I regard McCarthy as one of the top five young pitchers under 24 years old in our game," Didier said. "I believe he'll be a starter who can maybe work himself up to a No. 1 or No. 2."
Where some scouts look at the 6-foot-7 McCarthy and see another Jack McDowell, Didier sees former Cardinals ace Matt Morris.


There is also a bit of info on why they believe Kenny had a change of heart and decided to move Brandon.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/16746949.htm

BRDSR
02-21-2007, 10:04 AM
I was really shocked at how much Texas is talking up Brandon down there. They make it sound like they pulled a major fast one on us.



Some of us here, myself included, think that they did.

Corlose 15
02-21-2007, 10:04 AM
Its interesting to note that the Dallas writer appears excited about the potential but no one in Chicago cares that the Sox got 2 quality arms back in the deal or their potential.

caulfield12
02-21-2007, 10:08 AM
Maybe this is another Kip Wells situation that Brandon was never going to get it done in Chicago and he might excel away from the pressure.

Of course, he did well under pressure during the stretch run of August/September of 2005, but something definitely changed in his relationship with the front office...maybe he outspokenness wasn't appreciated. That's been an issue in the past, I think, especially with Keith Foulke.

I don't think Brandon has that overpowering fastball to dominate...it's more of a sneaky, riding fastball. I wasn't impressed with his curveball out of the bullpen, although arguments were made he would get a much better feel for that pitch when he went 2-3 innings or started and could develop a rhythm.

caulfield12
02-21-2007, 10:09 AM
Its interesting to note that the Dallas writer appears excited about the potential but no one in Chicago cares that the Sox got 2 quality arms back in the deal or their potential.

Make that 3 quality arms. Don't count out Rasner.

Nobody was talking about Liriano when the AJ trade went down, it was mostly Nathan and former high pick Bonser that got the attention.

oeo
02-21-2007, 10:11 AM
If there's one thing the Rangers cannot do, it's judging pitching talent.

We got three unproven guys with potential for one unproven guy with potential. How exactly did we get hosed?

caulfield12
02-21-2007, 10:16 AM
If there's one thing the Rangers cannot do, it's judging pitching talent.

We got three unproven guys with potential for one unproven guy with potential. How exactly did we get hosed?


Because 70 scouts also love McCarthy, lol...therefore, if it blows up in their face, they can say they weren't the only ones that were wrong about Brandon.

soxfan13
02-21-2007, 10:19 AM
If there's one thing the Rangers cannot do, it's judging pitching talent.

We got three unproven guys with potential for one unproven guy with potential. How exactly did we get hosed?

Exactly, there is no way to possibly rate this trade right now. 3 or 4 years down the road yes you will be able to see who hosed who:wink:

asboog
02-21-2007, 10:22 AM
If there's one thing the Rangers cannot do, it's judging pitching talent.

We got three unproven guys with potential for one unproven guy with potential. How exactly did we get hosed?

exactly i agree with you 100%

soxfanatlanta
02-21-2007, 10:57 AM
I was really shocked at how much Texas is talking up Brandon down there. They make it sound like they pulled a major fast one on us. Time will tell I guess...



There is also a bit of info on why they believe Kenny had a change of heart and decided to move Brandon.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/16746949.htm

Your basic fluff piece. We shall see how he handles him time on the mound - especially in the agonizing heat of July/August/September.

maurice
02-21-2007, 11:15 AM
It's hard to read the article without LOL. Fingernails sees himself "as a future ace," like a Chris Carpenter and Johan Santana. The Rangers argue that Fingernails = Black Jack and Matt Morris, because all 3 are "tall and skinny." The author concludes "Black Jack McDowell, Matt Morris or something in between? The Rangers can't wait to see how this dream ends." Yeah, "dream" is a good word for it.
:rolleyes:

Fingernails wasn't considered a future ace when he was with the Sox, and he shouldn't be considered one now. That's just spin. He certainly shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as young guys like Delmon Young, Felix Hernandez, Francisco Liriano, and Justin Verlander. If somebody here made these claims when McCarthy was still with the Sox, they'd be accused of severe coolaid intoxication.

McCarthy also projects unfavorably to Danks, who is one of the top prospects in baseball and a lefty to boot.

skottyj242
02-21-2007, 11:27 AM
I know some of us here thought the same thing even right after he was traded.

balke
02-21-2007, 11:27 AM
I don't know what happened that we had to trade Brandon. I think the main thing is they wanted to trade freddy, the best deal to come along involved Gavin Floyd.

Kenny may have liked both pitchers equally potential wise, and decided to dump Mccarthy because he has more trade value. I also think he (Brandon) got on some people's nerves by talking in the media a little bit too much about being a starter.

I see a huge upside to Brandon, and at worst he's a good #4 I'm thinking. Maybe he'll never get over allowing the longball. We'll see this season I guess.

skottyj242
02-21-2007, 11:32 AM
I don't know what happened that we had to trade Brandon. I think the main thing is they wanted to trade freddy, the best deal to come along involved Gavin Floyd.

Kenny may have liked both pitchers equally potential wise, and decided to dump Mccarthy because he has more trade value. I also think he (Brandon) got on some people's nerves by talking in the media a little bit too much about being a starter.

I see a huge upside to Brandon, and at worst he's a good #4 I'm thinking. Maybe he'll never get over allowing the longball. We'll see this season I guess.

He's going to get lit up in that ballpark.

Thome25
02-21-2007, 11:36 AM
I think we were cooking up a recipe for disaster with McCarthy at the Cell. The Cell is a launching pad and Brandon has a tendency to give up the longball because his pitches don't have enough movement on them.

The Rangers ballpark is a launching pad too. Mix that with the Rangers inability to evaluate pitching talent and McCarthy is their problem now.

Hopefully the Rangers inability to scout pitching talent means that they didn't realize just how good Danks and Masset were and how bad McCarthy is.

champagne030
02-21-2007, 12:01 PM
Of course, he did well under pressure during the stretch run of August/September of 2005, but something definitely changed in his relationship with the front office...maybe he outspokenness wasn't appreciated. That's been an issue in the past, I think, especially with Keith Foulke.


there are rumors that there was more to it than that, perhaps even something personal between Williams and the young pitcher.

Without getting too much into it, there were personal things between us in different realms

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/16746949.htm

I believe the rumor hinted at in the article is referring to an incident in Scottsdale, that has been cooberated by two members of the White Sox front office.

soxtalker
02-21-2007, 01:33 PM
I was really shocked at how much Texas is talking up Brandon down there. They make it sound like they pulled a major fast one on us. Time will tell I guess...



There is also a bit of info on why they believe Kenny had a change of heart and decided to move Brandon.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/baseball/16746949.htm

Well, the fans and sportswriters may view that they "pulled a major fast one on us," but the GM sounds like he realizes that he gave up a lot. Hey, that's what makes deals -- each side figures that it improves its particular situation.

California Sox
02-21-2007, 01:58 PM
Make that 3 quality arms. Don't count out Rasner.

Nobody was talking about Liriano when the AJ trade went down, it was mostly Nathan and former high pick Bonser that got the attention.

That's just not true. Liriano was one of the top prospects the Giants had, but he was available because he had some injury issues. (And he continues to unfortunately for him.) At the time people were saying it was an absolute heist for the Twins and it has turned out to be so.

Rasner might have a good arm, but no one talks about him the way they talked about Liriano at the time of the trade. I think he's basically a replacement for Daniel Cortes, the kid we threw into the MacDougal trade along with Lumsden. (I know nothing about the outfielder we threw in Paisano.)

I was against this trade from the start, but I have an open mind. The way I see it we traded a potential #1 (I agree with the McDowell comparison) for a #2-3 and a possible closer. If Masset puts it together, maybe we win the trade.

PaulDrake
02-21-2007, 02:23 PM
If Brandon McCarthy ever remotely resembles Jack McDowell, I for one will be more than a little surprised. As I've said numerous times, I didn't and still don't care for the Garcia trade. This one gives me a lot more hope, but again they still have to pitch. It takes time to properly evaluate trades.

WhiteSox5187
02-21-2007, 02:23 PM
I have a friend who covers the Sox for "Scout" magazine and he thinks the Sox got hosed in this trade. I'm not willing to go that far because I do think that Danks could be very good, but I'm not so sure that he'll be ready this year where McCarthy will be.

Having said that, I think that McCarthy is going to be a great pitcher for whoever he pitches for, I am not ready to say he's going to be the next Jack McDowell, but I think he'll be a very good starter. As could Danks. This is one of those trades that might work out very well for BOTH teams. But whether or not the Rangers hosed us or we hosed them, well...we'll find out in a couple of years.

FedEx227
02-21-2007, 02:25 PM
Potential, potential, potential... doesn't mean a damn unless you do something with it. I loved McCarthy and still think he's going to be good. But we got 3 "potentially" good guys for 1 "potentially" good guy.

He has no.1 stuff? Um, no. Anybody who imagines him as that is out of their mind, he has too straight of a fastball to ever be considered no.1 stuff, especially in Texas.

Just for a bit of reference, amount of homers given up by McCarthy per IP

2005: 5.15
2006: 4.98

That's a lot... compared with other White Sox starters

Buehrle '06 (probably the worst he could do): 5.66
Vazquez: 8.78
Contreras: 9.8

Jack McDowell career: 11.2
Matt Morris career: 10.5

caulfield12
02-21-2007, 02:27 PM
That's just not true. Liriano was one of the top prospects the Giants had, but he was available because he had some injury issues. (And he continues to unfortunately for him.) At the time people were saying it was an absolute heist for the Twins and it has turned out to be so.

Rasner might have a good arm, but no one talks about him the way they talked about Liriano at the time of the trade. I think he's basically a replacement for Daniel Cortes, the kid we threw into the MacDougal trade along with Lumsden. (I know nothing about the outfielder we threw in Paisano.)

I was against this trade from the start, but I have an open mind. The way I see it we traded a potential #1 (I agree with the McDowell comparison) for a #2-3 and a possible closer. If Masset puts it together, maybe we win the trade.



"Besides developing their own talent, the Twins have an eye for grabbing it from other organizations. Most famously, they got ace Johan Santana by orchestrating a 1999 Rule 5 draft trade with the Marlins. Top prospect Francisco Liriano was considered the third-best player in the November 2003 A.J. Pierzynski deal with the Giants, in which Minnesota also stole closer Joe Nathan."
from baseballamerica.com

I'll leave it for someone else to track down what number he was in the Giants system in 2003. I know Felix Diaz was #6 and he might as well have been 66.

PaulDrake
02-21-2007, 02:28 PM
I have a friend who covers the Sox for "Scout" magazine and he thinks the Sox got hosed in this trade. I'm not willing to go that far because I do think that Danks could be very good, but I'm not so sure that he'll be ready this year where McCarthy will be.

I have a friend who forgot more about baseball than I'll ever know, and who's seen all of the principals in this trade except for Rasner. He's convinced it was the Rangers who got hosed, and he likes Masset most of all. Again, time will tell if your friend or mine is closer to the mark.

WhiteSox5187
02-21-2007, 03:02 PM
I have a friend who forgot more about baseball than I'll ever know, and who's seen all of the principals in this trade except for Rasner. He's convinced it was the Rangers who got hosed, and he likes Masset most of all. Again, time will tell if your friend or mine is closer to the mark.
I just want to clarify that I think it is an odd trade but I don't think either team got hosed. I think in all likeliehood this is going to be a trade that BOTH teams are going to be glad they made because I dont' think all three of the guys that Texas gave up are going to suddenly become Cy Young winners. One of them, maybe.

Corlose 15
02-21-2007, 03:19 PM
Potential, potential, potential... doesn't mean a damn unless you do something with it. I loved McCarthy and still think he's going to be good. But we got 3 "potentially" good guys for 1 "potentially" good guy.

He has no.1 stuff? Um, no. Anybody who imagines him as that is out of their mind, he has too straight of a fastball to ever be considered no.1 stuff, especially in Texas.

Just for a bit of reference, amount of homers given up by McCarthy per IP

2005: 5.15
2006: 4.98

That's a lot... compared with other White Sox starters

Buehrle '06 (probably the worst he could do): 5.66
Vazquez: 8.78
Contreras: 9.8

Jack McDowell career: 11.2
Matt Morris career: 10.5


Shouldn't that read IP per HR? That had me screwed up for a second as I don't remember Black Jack giving up 11.2 HR per inning.:tongue:

California Sox
02-21-2007, 03:37 PM
I'll leave it for someone else to track down what number he was in the Giants system in 2003. I know Felix Diaz was #6 and he might as well have been 66.

I stand by my previous post. Liriano was one of the top young arms in the Giants system. Here are his numbers in 2002 in low A as an 18 year-old:

Hagerstown: 3-6 3.49 80IP 61H 45R 31ER 31BB 85SO 1.15WHIP.

He got hurt halfway through what had all the makings of a breakout season. Then in 2003, he threw exactly 9IP, 8.1 of that was in the AZL because he was still hurt. The Twins swooped in and took a chance on damaged goods because of the huge upside.

I'm not anti-Rasner but his ceiling is not in the same class at the time of the trade as Liriano. Here are his numbers as a 19 year old in low A:

Clinton 6-16 5.41 144.2IP 154H 102R 87ER 52BB 117SO 1.42WHIP

The only reason Liriano was not among the Giants top 15 at the time of the trade was his injury. The reason Rasner is ranked 30th for the Rangers is talent. Like I said, I'm not against the guy, but he profiles as a middle of the rotation guy if he makes it.

soxfan26
02-21-2007, 03:55 PM
Maybe this is another Kip Wells situation that Brandon was never going to get it done in Chicago and he might excel away from the pressure.

Are you suggesting that Kip Wells has excelled since leaving Chicago? :?:

MincHiaPettito
02-21-2007, 04:01 PM
It\'s hard to read the article without LOL. Fingernails sees himself "as a future ace," like a Chris Carpenter and Johan Santana. The Rangers argue that Fingernails = Black Jack and Matt Morris, because all 3 are "tall and skinny." The author concludes "Black Jack McDowell, Matt Morris or something in between? The Rangers can\'t wait to see how this dream ends." Yeah, "dream" is a good word for it.
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/

Fingernails wasn\'t considered a future ace when he was with the Sox, and he shouldn\'t be considered one now. That\'s just spin. He certainly shouldn\'t be mentioned in the same breath as young guys like Delmon Young, Felix Hernandez, Francisco Liriano, and Justin Verlander. If somebody here made these claims when McCarthy was still with the Sox, they\'d be accused of severe coolaid intoxication.

McCarthy also projects unfavorably to Danks, who is one of the top prospects in baseball and a lefty to boot.

Yes, he was...

Iwritecode
02-21-2007, 04:10 PM
Are you suggesting that Kip Wells has excelled since leaving Chicago? :?:

He was pretty good in '02 and '03 which were his first two years with the Pirates. Then he started sucking again the next 2 years.

I'm assuming he was injured or something last year as he only pitched a total of 44.3 innings.

Save McCuddy's
02-21-2007, 04:18 PM
McCarthy has nothing remotely close to ace stuff. If he did, he would have lit people up in his role out of the pen last year.

Sure, there is the possibility that he he could work his way into the upper half of a rotation. Garland is a great example of a young talent doing exactly that. However, to win it all there must be someone on your staff with the ability to dominate consistently the way that Contreras did down the stretch in '05. The rest of the staff picks up on that and pitches with confidence knowing that zeros are going up every fifth day and you have an ocurrence like our October went that magical year.

Mentions were made that McCarthy could become the next Black Jack. That would be a reach to say about anyone with Brandon's current track record, but say for instance that he does achieve to that level. What you end up with is a great competitor with above average stuff who dominates the Royals, Rays, and other cellar dweller types but is overmatched when fall rolls around and he has to neutralize Henderson, Molitor, Olerud and Carter types. We had that heartbreak once before. Plus, we've already got our Black Jack equivalent in Buehrle and he's lefty. Shed no tears over the loss of BMAC -- let's just hope that one of these guys (Danks, Gio, Masset, etc) becomes Liriano or Santana. That's a risk we had to take.

rdivaldi
02-21-2007, 04:21 PM
I for one considered Brandon a potential front-line pitcher ever since the first day I saw him pitch down in Arizona back in 2002. He was aggressive, threw strikes and had good velocity for a scrawny tall kid. If you go back through Brandon's career you'll see he's always given up a bit more hits and homers than the other elite prospects. Whether it's because his fastball doesn't have enough movement or he's too aggressive in the strikezone is up for debate.

I think one thing that bothered me besides the homers last year was the amount of walks he gave up. Like I said before, the kid had been throwing strikes consistently in a White Sox uniform for 4 years until last year.

Personally I think the kid will be a consistent 14- 17 game winner for his career if he remains healthy and continues to improve his changeup. If Garland can do it then Brandon can as well.

California Sox
02-21-2007, 05:28 PM
McCarthy has nothing remotely close to ace stuff. If he did, he would have lit people up in his role out of the pen last year.

Sure, there is the possibility that he he could work his way into the upper half of a rotation. Garland is a great example of a young talent doing exactly that. However, to win it all there must be someone on your staff with the ability to dominate consistently the way that Contreras did down the stretch in '05. The rest of the staff picks up on that and pitches with confidence knowing that zeros are going up every fifth day and you have an ocurrence like our October went that magical year.

Mentions were made that McCarthy could become the next Black Jack. That would be a reach to say about anyone with Brandon's current track record, but say for instance that he does achieve to that level. What you end up with is a great competitor with above average stuff who dominates the Royals, Rays, and other cellar dweller types but is overmatched when fall rolls around and he has to neutralize Henderson, Molitor, Olerud and Carter types. We had that heartbreak once before. Plus, we've already got our Black Jack equivalent in Buehrle and he's lefty. Shed no tears over the loss of BMAC -- let's just hope that one of these guys (Danks, Gio, Masset, etc) becomes Liriano or Santana. That's a risk we had to take.

That had nothing to do with McDowell's stuff. He was tipping pitches. Those guys were good enough without knowing what was coming.

soxwon
02-21-2007, 05:37 PM
Ace- doubtfull
very good pitcher- sure
but by then Danks & Massett will be proven winners
three years from now- it'll be a steal for our side.

munchman33
02-21-2007, 05:45 PM
Looking back, this was a trade that made sense for both teams. Texas really needed cheap, young, MLB ready starting talent with a high ceiling. Kenny seems really sold on Floyd as a starter, and got a guy back in Danks that has a similar/arguably higher ceiling than McCarthy. He just won't be ready for this year. He also picked up a significant piece for the bullpen that's ready now in Masset. Kudos to both teams. I can see it working both ways.

Save McCuddy's
02-21-2007, 07:08 PM
That had nothing to do with McDowell's stuff. He was tipping pitches. Those guys were good enough without knowing what was coming.


Tipping his pitches? He gave up better than a hit per inning that year (granted, a cy young campaign) and flat out didn't have a way to get those guys out if they weren't willing to swing at the splitter -- which they weren't. Did he tip his pitches in '95 and '96 when the Mariners and Baltimore rocked him around in the playoffs?

Plain and simple, he was a two pitch pitcher that had to get ahead then get guys to chase the splitter in the dirt. Good fastball hitters put the ball in play right away and patient hitters worked him over when he fell behind in the count. Toronto was loaded with both types.

maurice
02-22-2007, 11:58 AM
I am among the handful of WSI posters who have been hyping McCarthy as a prospect for years . . . but he's no Danks. According to BA, Danks has been the #1 or #2 rated prospect in his organization for 3 years now. IIRC, McCarthy was #11 one year and #3 the next. The Sox system certainly is not several times better than the Rangers system, so if McCarthy has been considered a "future ace," how should we consider the more highly regarded Danks?

The beauty of the game is that nobody knows who will end up better in the long run, but you cannot reasonably claim that McCarthy was higher rated as a prosepct than Danks by the pros. McCarthy's only clear advantage is that he's a year or two ahead of Danks in his develpment. While that may be important, it says nothing about whether McCarthy is a "future ace."

Even if McCarthy becomes as productive as Garland, Garland is not an "Ace" like Johan Santana and Black Jack (two guys mentioned in the article).

SBSoxFan
02-22-2007, 03:04 PM
He's going to get lit up in that ballpark.

Yep. And combine that with the fact that he's gonna be, what, a #3 starter? I wonder if he can handle that at this point. Garland was always held back to a #4 or #5 until the last couple of years. Brandon's being thrown to the lions, and they're going to tear him up this year. How he rebounds from it will be telling for his future.

soxinem1
02-22-2007, 03:32 PM
I'm not golng to bad mouth the guy just because he is not here anymore, but I do predict there will be at least one starting pitcher on the White Sox who will have a worse season that he does in TEX.

WhiteSox5187
02-22-2007, 03:36 PM
I'm not willing to give up on either McCarthy or Danks. I think McCarthy is going to be a GREAT pitcher, I don't think he'll be like Johan or even Blackjack, but people here are saying "He could be like Garland." Well, over the past three years NO ONE has won more games that Garland. If McCarthy turns into an eighteen game winner, I'd say it's a good trade for Texas. And if Danks turns out to be so lights out (now I've heard some people say he DOES have the ability to be a Blackjack type pitcher and others have said he's vastly overrated) it's a good trade for the White Sox. I think this is going to be a trade that will either benefit BOTH teams or it won't benefit anyone at all. I don't think either the Rangers or the Sox are going to look back three years from now and say "What a steal!" But it's so hard to tell. At the time, Brock-for-Brogglio looked like a good trade. But I dont think that this trade is going to be anything like THAT one.

caulfield12
02-22-2007, 04:07 PM
I'm not willing to give up on either McCarthy or Danks. I think McCarthy is going to be a GREAT pitcher, I don't think he'll be like Johan or even Blackjack, but people here are saying "He could be like Garland." Well, over the past three years NO ONE has won more games that Garland. If McCarthy turns into an eighteen game winner, I'd say it's a good trade for Texas. And if Danks turns out to be so lights out (now I've heard some people say he DOES have the ability to be a Blackjack type pitcher and others have said he's vastly overrated) it's a good trade for the White Sox. I think this is going to be a trade that will either benefit BOTH teams or it won't benefit anyone at all. I don't think either the Rangers or the Sox are going to look back three years from now and say "What a steal!" But it's so hard to tell. At the time, Brock-for-Brogglio looked like a good trade. But I dont think that this trade is going to be anything like THAT one.

He has averaged 14 wins per season the last 3 years.

649.3 IP, 310 ERA=4.30 ERA

I don't think you could say that's much better than a #3 starter would be expected to accomplish, maybe a #4.

What is the AL Average ERA those 3 seasons? I'm sure Jon is somewhere right around that average, perhaps a tad below it.

soxtalker
02-22-2007, 04:17 PM
I'm not willing to give up on either McCarthy or Danks. I think McCarthy is going to be a GREAT pitcher, I don't think he'll be like Johan or even Blackjack, but people here are saying "He could be like Garland." Well, over the past three years NO ONE has won more games that Garland. If McCarthy turns into an eighteen game winner, I'd say it's a good trade for Texas. And if Danks turns out to be so lights out (now I've heard some people say he DOES have the ability to be a Blackjack type pitcher and others have said he's vastly overrated) it's a good trade for the White Sox. I think this is going to be a trade that will either benefit BOTH teams or it won't benefit anyone at all. I don't think either the Rangers or the Sox are going to look back three years from now and say "What a steal!" But it's so hard to tell. At the time, Brock-for-Brogglio looked like a good trade. But I dont think that this trade is going to be anything like THAT one.

Hopefully, you are correct. While it might make the fans of one side feel good that their team made a steal on a deal, it probably is better in the long run if both sides feel that they gained. It is worth noting that KW has made big deals two years in a row with Philadelphia, and that's probably because both sides felt that they gained in the Thome-Rowand exchange.

A lot has been said on the Danks-McCarthy comparison, and I don't know how much new info can come out until they play the games. It isn't a straight comparison, of course. Masset (as well as the two less-advanced minor leaguers), the lefty-righty exchange, and a number of other factors are all part of the equation.

ewokpelts
02-22-2007, 04:20 PM
Yep. And combine that with the fact that he's gonna be, what, a #3 starter? I wonder if he can handle that at this point. Garland was always held back to a #4 or #5 until the last couple of years. Brandon's being thrown to the lions, and they're going to tear him up this year. How he rebounds from it will be telling for his future.garland was a 3 from 2002-2004...in 2005, he was the 5th starter

caulfield12
02-22-2007, 04:37 PM
garland was a 3 from 2002-2004...in 2005, he was the 5th starter

2002 Buehrle, Ritchie, Garland, Wright, Glover

2003 Loaiza, Colon, Buehrle, Garland, Wright

2004 Buehrle, Garcia, Loiaza/Contreras, Garland, Schoeneweis

veeter
02-22-2007, 05:57 PM
Kenny does not get fleeced. The Wells/Fogg thing pissed me off beyond belief, but neither ever panned out. Ritchie was God awful, but again, the trade was bad for everyone. McCarthy is coming off a terrible season. Granted it was out of the pen, but it was horrible none the less. I'm pretty confident this will go down as one of Kenny's better moves.

Gregory Pratt
02-22-2007, 07:25 PM
ESPN's Peter Gammons recently polled approximately 70 front office, field and scouting people on the most likely players to have "breakout" seasons in 2007. McCarthy was No. 1 on the list, ahead of such talented young pitchers as Seattle's Felix Hernandez and San Francisco's Matt Cain, as well as Tampa Bay outfielder Delmon Young.


With all due respect, I think you'd have to be retarded to rate McCarthy above Felix Hernandez.

caulfield12
02-22-2007, 09:45 PM
With all due respect, I think you'd have to be retarded to rate McCarthy above Felix Hernandez.

This is a little misleading.

Not who's the best or will be the best, but who's going to have a "breakout" season.

Some already consider Cain and Hernandez to be more established players...but I can't see why they would pick McCarthy over Young for ROY.

rdivaldi
02-23-2007, 12:01 AM
2002 Buehrle, Ritchie, Garland, Wright, Glover

2004 Buehrle, Garcia, Loiaza/Contreras, Garland, Schoeneweis

Ouch, I shudder when I think of those 4 in our starting rotation.

White Sox Randy
02-23-2007, 10:57 AM
I've always thought that Brandon will be an excellent big league pitcher on the level with our current starting 4.

I won't say that the Sox got taken in the deal because they got back good pitchers also. It's just that I think this trade hurts the Sox for this year because I don't think the Sox 5th starter this year will do nearly as well as Brandon would have. This could keep the Sox from the playoffs in what will surely be a close race.

I think that Danks and Masset will both be good. I would be surprised if either has a better career than Brandon. That's just my opinion. I've always been high on him and I was very unhappy when he was traded.

I consider Brandon to be the anti-Vazquez. I keep hearing that Vazquez has the best stuff - he just can't get out of jams, go deep into the game and basically win games for you.

Brandon has guts and determination and all the intangibles along with good stuff that will make him a winner. And, he's going to fill out and get bigger which will help.

Only time will tell.

caulfield12
02-23-2007, 11:01 AM
I've always thought that Brandon will be an excellent big league pitcher on the level with our current starting 4.

I won't say that the Sox got taken in the deal because they got back good pitchers also. It's just that I think this trade hurts the Sox for this year because I don't think the Sox 5th starter this year will do nearly as well as Brandon would have. This could keep the Sox from the playoffs in what will surely be a close race.

I think that Danks and Masset will both be good. I would be surprised if either has a better career than Brandon. That's just my opinion. I've always been high on him and I was very unhappy when he was traded.

I consider Brandon to be the anti-Vazquez. I keep hearing that Vazquez has the best stuff - he just can't get out of jams, go deep into the game and basically win games for you.

Brandon has guts and determination and all the intangibles along with good stuff that will make him a winner. And, he's going to fill out and get bigger which will help.

Only time will tell.

Brandon has two "plus" pitches, Vazquez has four.

That's why we'll have to wait until AT LEAST October (although every ST start for Floyd will be scrutinized) to even begin dissecting this trade's impact.

KW thinks Floyd=McCarthy and Masset improves our bullpen THIS YEAR, that's it. We shall see.

oeo
02-23-2007, 11:07 AM
Brandon has two "plus" pitches, Vazquez has four.

That's why we'll have to wait until AT LEAST October (although every ST start for Floyd will be scrutinized) to even begin dissecting this trade's impact.

KW thinks Floyd=McCarthy and Masset improves our bullpen THIS YEAR, that's it. We shall see.

Actually, the way they're talking, Masset could be the 5th starter.

caulfield12
02-23-2007, 11:20 AM
Actually, the way they're talking, Masset could be the 5th starter.

You never know. Prinz or Oneli Perez could surprise and take the role that Masset was going to fill, and Floyd might end up starting all season in Charlotte, although you would think he would be better off with Cooper working with him on an everyday basis.

They might be convinced to take Gio Gonzalez and make a set-up man out of him due to his small frame...putting Sisco in the fight for the rotation as well. Logan can be a factor too.

rdivaldi
02-23-2007, 11:31 AM
They might be convinced to take Gio Gonzalez and make a set-up man out of him due to his small frame.

I might start questioning the Gio Gonzalez "small frame" talk. It's not like the kid is as thin as Fingernails. I think that scouts should start talking about his height, not his frame because from the looks of things he's starting to fill out.