PDA

View Full Version : Just a Suggestion


RKMeibalane
03-26-2002, 02:06 PM
I noticed yesterday that Joe Crede has been optioned to Triple-A Charlotte for the time being, mainly because there isn't room for him. I think the Sox need to make a trade in order to create a roster for him. The most obvious player would be Royce Clayton as a result of his poor play during the first half of last season; this would also allow Jose Valentin to move back to shortstop. However, nobody on the planet this side of Kenny Williams wants Clayton, so trading Valentin is the best option.

This trade would probably weaken the Sox offensively, because Valentin gives them another solid bat behind Frank and Magglio, but the Sox are one of the worst defensive teams in baseball. You can't win with offense. Just ask the Texas Rangers of last season, and the Houston Astros of 2000 when they first played at "Ten-Run Field." Adding Crede to the mix would at least give the Sox a stable glove at third. This would not solve all the of the Sox problems of course, but it would be a start. The White Sox have no pitching either, except for Buerhle (sp) and Garland, depending upon how well he is pitching. Ritchie is an average pitcher at best. Trading Jose Valentin in exchange for another arm would help. Anything the Sox can do to improve their pitching and defense will increase their chances of reacing the post-season.

I know a lot of this has been talked about before. I hope Sox management is aware of the team's pitching woes. One need only glance at some of the scores from this spring to determine what the Sox's strengths and weaknesses are.

czalgosz
03-26-2002, 02:10 PM
1) The Indians last year proved that you can win with just offense. They had no pitching (worse than the Sox) and their defense was incredibly overrated. That hurt them in the postseason, but didn't prevent them from getting there.

2) Royce Clayton is gone after this season. If the Sox trade Valentin, shortstop becomes a huge, glaring hole in 2003.

3) If the Sox going to trade a position player, I'd rather trade Carlos Lee. He'll bring more in trade because he's younger and has a higher ceiling offensively, and he is a heck of a lot easier to replace.

4) This better not turn into another Valentin-Clayton thread.

Bmr31
03-26-2002, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
1) The Indians last year proved that you can win with just offense. They had no pitching (worse than the Sox) and their defense was incredibly overrated. That hurt them in the postseason, but didn't prevent them from getting there.

2) Royce Clayton is gone after this season. If the Sox trade Valentin, shortstop becomes a huge, glaring hole in 2003.

3) If the Sox going to trade a position player, I'd rather trade Carlos Lee. He'll bring more in trade because he's younger and has a higher ceiling offensively, and he is a heck of a lot easier to replace.

4) This better not turn into another Valentin-Clayton thread.

Sorry, the indians didnt win crap last season. The teams with the best pitching made it to the world series, as usual.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-26-2002, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
....4) This better not turn into another Valentin-Clayton thread.

No need to, Cz. We've got you here to police it.

:)

FarWestChicago
03-26-2002, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Sorry, the indians didnt win crap last season.I could have sworn they were AL Central Division Champs.

czalgosz
03-26-2002, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


Sorry, the indians didnt win crap last season. The teams with the best pitching made it to the world series, as usual.

Like I said, not having pitching hurt the Tribe in the postseason, but not until then.

This team won't win the world series this year no matter what they do. If you won't be happy with anything less, prepare to be disappointed.

Bmr31
03-26-2002, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Like I said, not having pitching hurt the Tribe in the postseason, but not until then.

This team won't win the world series this year no matter what they do. If you won't be happy with anything less, prepare to be disappointed.

The way things look now? With who we have a a GM? Id be happy if we were competitive this season.....

czalgosz
03-26-2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


No need to, Cz. We've got you here to police it.

:)

Just doing my part to make sure that we all survive to see Opening Day before we kill each other.

Jerry_Manuel
03-26-2002, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31
With who we have a a GM?

It was either him or Evans, and Dan isn't exactly setting the world on fire in LA. I'm not sure who I'd rather have right now.

moochpuppy
03-26-2002, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Bmr31


The teams with the best pitching made it to the world series, as usual.

When was the Atlanta/Seattle World Series played?

czalgosz
03-26-2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by moochpuppy


When was the Atlanta/Seattle World Series played?

Arizona had a team tailor-made for the postseason - two dominant starters and a bunch of good hitters off the bench. Atlanta certainly had a deeper pitching staff, which carried them through the regular season, but it wasn't good enough for the postseason.

Seattle's pitchers were pitching over thier head - does anyone really think that Paul Abbott will ever win 17 games in a season again? And, again, the Yankees were tailor made for the postseason.

Both the Yankees and the Diamondbacks were lucky to be in the postseason last year - massive choke jobs by both the Giants and Dodgers allowed the D-Backs to slip in, and if Pedro and Nomar hadn't gotten hurt, the Yankees wouldn't have made the playoffs, either. They just turned it on once they got there.

moochpuppy
03-26-2002, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz


Arizona had a team tailor-made for the postseason - two dominant starters and a bunch of good hitters off the bench. Atlanta certainly had a deeper pitching staff, which carried them through the regular season, but it wasn't good enough for the postseason.

Seattle's pitchers were pitching over thier head - does anyone really think that Paul Abbott will ever win 17 games in a season again? And, again, the Yankees were tailor made for the postseason.

Both the Yankees and the Diamondbacks were lucky to be in the postseason last year - massive choke jobs by both the Giants and Dodgers allowed the D-Backs to slip in, and if Pedro and Nomar hadn't gotten hurt, the Yankees wouldn't have made the playoffs, either. They just turned it on once they got there.

Granted, but that still doesn't change the fact that the DBacks and Yanks were not the best pitching staffs.

czalgosz
03-26-2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by moochpuppy


Granted, but that still doesn't change the fact that the DBacks and Yanks were not the best pitching staffs.

No, I guess not. It seems to me that what will get you a lot of wins in the regular season (a deep pitching staff with a good bullpen, a solid lineup that will score lots of runs) isn't the same thing at all with what will get you into the World Series (two or more dominant starters or at least some clutch pitching performances, solid, error-free defense). Very few teams can combine both, which is why the team with the best overall record in either league has only won it all once since they started the 3-division format.

Paulwny
03-26-2002, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by moochpuppy


Granted, but that still doesn't change the fact that the DBacks and Yanks were not the best pitching staffs.

Yanks had problems with middle relief and El Duques health. Clemens, Mussina and Pettite are 3 tough starters.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-26-2002, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
Arizona had a team tailor-made for the postseason - two dominant starters and a bunch of good hitters off the bench. Atlanta certainly had a deeper pitching staff, which carried them through the regular season, but it wasn't good enough for the postseason.

Yes, but what you're saying is different than suggesting pitching wins championships. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying two stud starters and a deep bench wins short series--like the best-of-seven World Series. This isn't news. Who can forget "Spahn, Sain, and three days of rain"? Nothing has changed.

Seattle's pitchers were pitching over thier head - does anyone really think that Paul Abbott will ever win 17 games in a season again? And, again, the Yankees were tailor made for the postseason.

After 162 games, you're going to begrudge the Seattle Mariners the title of best pitching staff of 2001? That ain't right.

Both the Yankees and the Diamondbacks were lucky to be in the postseason last year - massive choke jobs by both the Giants and Dodgers allowed the D-Backs to slip in, and if Pedro and Nomar hadn't gotten hurt, the Yankees wouldn't have made the playoffs, either. They just turned it on once they got there.

Ah yes, the championship pedigree. It's hard to put your finger on it sometimes.

BTW, who was it that beat "Spahn, Sain, and three days of rain" back in 1948 for the world championship? The answer: Lou Boudreau's '48 Tribe. Remember who the owner was?

:reinsy
"I build first-class organizations."


:veeck
"I'll settle for first-place ones. There is a BIG difference. Furthermore, I didn't inherit Michael Jordan to fool anyone into thinking I was the genius behind the organization's success, either.

czalgosz
03-26-2002, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


Yes, but what you're saying is different than suggesting pitching wins championships. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying two stud starters and a deep bench wins short series--like the best-of-seven World Series. This isn't news. Who can forget "Spahn, Sain, and three days of rain"? Nothing has changed.


Yes, but you had to finish first out of 8 teams to even make the World Series back then. You couldn't win 87 games and hope to slip in under the radar.



After 162 games, you're going to begrudge the Seattle Mariners the title of best pitching staff of 2001? That ain't right.


They certainly had the best clutch-hitting in baseball last season, and their bullpen was one of the top 3 out there, but their starters were nothing more than average. They got incredible run support - the Mariners scored almost 8 runs/game with Paul Abbott on the mound last season. Think they'll do that again? Playing in an pitcher's park didn't hurt, either. Average starting pitching was certainly good enough for that team (no team has every piece of the puzzle), but I'd hesitate to say they were the best out there. The A's and Yankees have something to say about that.




Ah yes, the championship pedigree. It's hard to put your finger on it sometimes.


If I knew the answer to that, I would be a billionaire. But the Yankees have certainly had more than their fair share of luck over the past 5 years - who can forget the Chuck Knoblauch "phantom tag" back in '99 that by itself allowed the Yankees to make the World Series?

And, Veeck inherited both the '48 Indians and the '59 White Sox. He did a pretty good job of dismantling both of those teams, as well.

cornball
03-26-2002, 05:39 PM
I agree the Sox need to do something to the pitching...it is a mistake to take young unproven pitchers with the defense we currently have going into the year. I would welcome a trade of some of these guys for pitching, Valentin, Lee or others.... if we traded Lee for possible pitching help...Liefer/Rowand platoon..not much loss offensively and better defensively....if Valentin is traded we improve defensively......as examples


Even if you lose Clayton next year if Valentin is gone, you can get a shortstop...the Cubs did it this year

RichH55
03-26-2002, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by cornball
I agree the Sox need to do something to the pitching...it is a mistake to take young unproven pitchers with the defense we currently have going into the year. I would welcome a trade of some of these guys for pitching, Valentin, Lee or others.... if we traded Lee for possible pitching help...Liefer/Rowand platoon..not much loss offensively and better defensively....if Valentin is traded we improve defensively......as examples


Even if you lose Clayton next year if Valentin is gone, you can get a shortstop...the Cubs did it this year


Yes...going into the offseason without a player at a premium position and no one in the system even close to being ready is just what I want going into trade talks...great great leverage.....is pretty please with sugar on top a valid negotion tool these days? Its not so much D as Pitching that is the key.....IE if you throw Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson out there for 4 games of a Series than it doesn't matter that your SS is Tony Womack....I still think 2003 will be our year....and that we develop at least one quality starter in 2002 giving you 3 consistent starters at the top of the rotation and then you can maneuver in this upcoming offseason to make your move for another starter

Jerry_Manuel
03-26-2002, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by RichH55
I still think 2003 will be our year

Our year, for what?

Please don't say World Series.

cornball
03-27-2002, 08:25 AM
Rich, it happens all the time where people go into the off season with a spot open..it is not the best situation, in fact it is a bad situation...but in todays game it happens all the time... i just gave you a great example at the same postion.

To say next year is the "year"...is impossible at this time....as it stands right now you have pitching problems and next year( as it looks right now) you would have 3 rookies in the lineup....Crede Bourchard and Harris. Baseball is too liquid to forcast that far out in this day and age.

Pitching and defense go hand in hand, i look at all sports and i dont recall a champ that had a weak defense.

My concern with the defense is we have young pitchers, if we consistantly make errors, or give more than 3 outs and inning ...it is tough to compete at the major league level.

We are fortunate to have a few guys who if we traded now, wouldnt hurt us too bad and might be able to make us stronger.

I worry about this year and it hasnt started.....if your concerns are for 2003, that is actually funny.

RichH55
03-27-2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


Our year, for what?

Please don't say World Series.


I did indeed....I see reasons why that won't happen, but I see reasons why it could as well..........so why close the door? I dont see anyone as leaps and bounds ahead of us for 2003(not leaps and bounds better for 2002 most likely)...and alot of the better teams have been winning with older pitching....that has to be a ? as well

RichH55
03-27-2002, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by cornball
Rich, it happens all the time where people go into the off season with a spot open..it is not the best situation, in fact it is a bad situation...but in todays game it happens all the time... i just gave you a great example at the same postion.

To say next year is the "year"...is impossible at this time....as it stands right now you have pitching problems and next year( as it looks right now) you would have 3 rookies in the lineup....Crede Bourchard and Harris. Baseball is too liquid to forcast that far out in this day and age.

Pitching and defense go hand in hand, i look at all sports and i dont recall a champ that had a weak defense.

My concern with the defense is we have young pitchers, if we consistantly make errors, or give more than 3 outs and inning ...it is tough to compete at the major league level.

We are fortunate to have a few guys who if we traded now, wouldnt hurt us too bad and might be able to make us stronger.

I worry about this year and it hasnt started.....if your concerns are for 2003, that is actually funny.

So if you say its not a good position, in fact a bad one....why would you voluntarily put yourself into it? Thats simply poor management....leaving yourself zero leverage with no SS and a rookie for 3B......2003 is just my personal opinion, but I do feel the big deal we wind up making will come in this next offseason.


And just to nitpick...I think Harris will be a rookie this year, and probably Hummel gets the job at 2B next year with Harris staying as the Uber-utility guy........3 rookies in the lineup is probably a concern, and since Olivio could see time as well it could be an even bigger concern...but the rookie replacement value compared to the players they are replacing shouldnt be that bad.....Crede should put up better numbers than Clayton, Borchard wildly different ones than Lofton and Hummel should have a higher OBP than Ray, and Catcher couldnt get a whole lot worse, so I don't see this as a reason to panic



"Pitching and defense go hand in hand, i look at all sports and i dont recall a champ that had a weak defense."


What the hell does that mean? Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the way this reads is like saying since the 1985 Bears won the Super Bowl with a strong defense than Pitching and Defense go hand in hand......seriously I think the high school debate english coach i used to know would have an anuyerism reading that.

And for the defense spiel...Tony Womack and Derek Jeter are both regarded as less than great defenders(Womack is just plain brutal)....so the point Ive been trying to make is that Pitching is the key in this day and age along with hitting rather than defense....not to say that defense isnt important, but having Randy Johnson out there and/or scoring 1000 runs is going to make everything look alot better