ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 04:51 PM) That's probably why Soxfan101 brought up the Ks and CGs. Also, Halladay's BAA is .222 while Mark has a BAA of .242. But what you're saying is that Mark could lead in all of the categories that they're close in, which would leave out the categories where Halladay has the obvious advantage. I understand and agree with what you're saying, although I could also see why it would get misconstrued. You're an excellent writer though, one of the best here as far as I can tell. Good point, missed that last part. I also threw in the edit, which probably contributed. Thanks for the complement, that's what going to Fenwick does for you.

Actually, Schmidt used to throw more like 97-98, now he is about 3 MPH slower. Still pretty hard, but not his old self, and he probably gets some fastballs hit harder than he used to.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 04:37 PM) too close? Halladay has 19 K's more so unless Buehrle has a career K game that wont be close especially if Halladay has another start. Also Halladay has 5 complete games compared to Buehrle's 2. Also while their era is close 2.40 to 2.42 Halladay faces the Yankees, Orioles, and Boston offenses compared to Mark facing the Twins, Indians, and Detroit ones which none are as good offensively as the yanks, orioles, or boston. I did say MOST categories, didn't I?

Most of the stats between Halladay and Buehrle are so close they can switch in the course of a single start. By this time next week it's highly possible that Mark will lead in everything. I agree that Mark should/will get the nod because he is on the best team in baseball. He also got screwed out of at least two wins that I can remember when he let up 0 or 1 runs in 8 innings and got a no decision. That's awesome that he only has one loss to this point, and that says something about him as a pitcher this year. Actually after further analysis, he got a ND where it probably shouldn't have been a loss and one or two iffy wins to counteract those two he was robbed of. Guess I'm biased, but who knows, Mark might pass him in some of these areas.

QUOTE(Frankensteiner @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 03:49 PM) The Marlins traded for Urbina and subsequently made him their new closer. That's a significant move, and on par with the White Sox adding another starter or position player. The Marlins also didn't have the best record in baseball, or a closer who is 17 for 18 in save situations, or three starters with an ERA under 3.30. They're a team that needed some help in order to get to the playoffs in the first place, and they just barely snuck into the playoffs. Then things started breaking their way.

By the way, the 2001 Mariners keep coming up, and I don't really think that's a good comparison. They were playing roughly as well as we were, but their team was built much differently. They're probably more similar to the 2000 Sox than this year's Sox. Their starting staff (at least if I remember it right) was Garcia, Moyer, Piniero, and Halama. Their offense, on the other hand, was fairly potent, with Ichiro at the top and Boone and Martinez hitting well in the middle. This team is not built the same way as ours. I don't see how you could argue that their rotation was in good shape for the playoffs. Our rotation is definitely more potent than theirs, making us better built for success in the playoffs. I also think the teams they faced in the playoffs are much stronger than the teams we would have to face this year.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 03:53 PM) If Conteras throws strikes he is very good. If he falls in love with his forkball then he will be meat. My only concern with Conteras facing Boston is the history there. Boston owns Contreras. Seattle sat at the trade deadline with 3 possible trades to make their team better in 2001. They passed for the same reasons we are talking about passing. Chemistry. Maybe if they upgraded at one position or had more more pitcher. Who knows. I would rather make a few tweaks than to stand pat. You're entitled to your opinion, but outside of an unlikely deal for Chavez, I think a major trade does as much harm as good by costing us financial flexibility and young, cheap talent. I agree with Balta, the only way to drastically improve your chances of winning the series is get there more than once (at least in our case).

QUOTE(VAfan @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 03:29 PM) I would agree you have to assess each team's strength's and weaknesses and what is available in the market to decide whether a mid-season trade is prudent. I also think you have to look at the longer term. I'd like the Sox to be like the Indians and Twins have been and rule this division for the next 5 years, not just this year. But the extra factor here is 1 pennant in 87 years for the Sox, and the realization that a WS victory could transform this franchise for many years. In that context, the Sox have to consider "going for it." That doesn't mean trading the farm for a rent-a-player, but it does mean taking everything into consideration. I still think swapping out a high-quality starter for Jose Contreras is perhaps the best way for us to ensure we go far in the postseason. Let's say we draw the Angels in round 1 b/c Minny has won the Wild Card. Game 1 is Buerhle v. Colon Game 2 is Garcia v. Washburn Game 3 is Garland v. Lackey Game 4 is Contreras v. Byrd Game 5 is a repeat of game 1. In this scenario, we may have a slight edge in all 4 games, but it is not much of an edge against a team with a stronger offense and playoff experience. But let's say we've survived the Angels by winning in 5 games. Now we get the Red Sox. And let's say the Red Sox beat the Twins in 4 games. Game 1 is Garcia v. Schilling Game 2 is Garland v. Clement Game 3 is Buehrle v. Wells Game 4 is Contreras v. Wakefield Game 5 is a repeat, etc. Here, our only clear edge is Buehrle v. Wells, which does not bode well when the BoSox have the strongest offense in the AL. Having Jason Schmidt instead of Jose Contreras in both series could make an immense difference. Contreras, if he's on, might have the edge against the Angel's or BoSox's 4th starters, but given his inconsistency, I'd rate the games a tossup. But Schmidt, if he pitched the 4th game or slid Garland to 4th, would have the edge over both teams' #3 guys and Garland would have a clear edge over the #4 guy. So at the end of the day, the way I look at it is the addition of a guy like Jason Schmidt means we will be no worse than even matching up Buehrle and Garcia against anyone else's 1-2, but we will gain a clear matchup edge in the 3-4 matchups. That is a formula for winning the World Series. It may not be the only formula, but it is the easiest one to fit into this 2005 White Sox team. Who's to say Schmidt is really any better than Contreras? It's all a crap shoot. Both have the ability to go 7 or 8 innings of dominance, both have the ability to let up 3 runs in 6 innings, and both have the ability to get rocked. Also, Contreras has had a much better year. Schmidt has gotten his ERA down to 4.81 with a few good starts. Contreras' ERA has gone up to 4.15 after a few bad ones. After his start on June 7th, Contreras' ERA was 3.13. Think about that one for a second there. I like our chances with Contreras against Byrd and Wakefield. As for your assessment that you don't like our chances with Garcia/Garland against Schilling/Clement, we can't really assess those two players on the Red Sox at this point (and Garcia and Garland have been pitching just as well as Clement anyways). Schilling has had exactly one good start going back to last season's ALCS on the major league level, and Clement has a history of dominating for stretches and then sucking. We don't really know how they will be pitching by the time the playoffs come around. Anyways, I don't see the problem with one clear edge and 3 toss ups. You're pretty fortunate if you get a pitching matchup in you favor, which is bound to happen with the way our guys have been pitching. The only way we are in trouble then is if we have some really bad luck and loss all of the close games and end up down 3-1. I highly doubt that happens. Our top 3 have shown no signs of faltering. That's the important thing to consider going into the playoffs. Our top two prospects and $10 mil for next year is an awful lot to pay for basically one, perhaps two starts in the playoffs. Edit- Also, I doubt that Contreras pitches in the ALDS. The way the days off are spaced, it'd be a lot more likely that we repeat one of our top three starters unless we are already up 2-1. I do think that is highly possible (I really like our chances with Garland vs Lackey and Garcia vs Washburn, plus a decent chance of beating Colon), but that doesn't mean it will happen. That would mean that Contreras would more likely pitch game 2 of the ALCS after the remaining pitcher of our big 3 pitches game one, instead of a more important game 4. Also, you're assuming that Boston would be able to lineup their rotation how they want to, which is far from a certainty, especially given their shaky bullpen and the fact that they only have two reliable starters, even if Schilling comes back healthy and Clement doesn't slide.

I just want to throw in my .2 cents on the doubles thing... Hitting doubles has absolutely nothing to do with speed. Most doubles are from hard hit balls in the gaps or down the line, meaning it's more of a power thing. That's why Frank Thomas typically was one of the leaders, and why Albert Belle hit 50 doubles in a season. Most of the leaders are either elite sluggers (like Derek Lee, Alfonso Soriano, and Miguel Tejada this year) or guys with gap power that don't hit a lot of homers (Brad Wilkerson, Marcus Giles, Craig Biggio). Of the top 10 doubles hitters (there is a tie for 10, making it 11), only three of them have fewer than 10 homers, and two of them are Brad Wilkerson and Brian Giles, who have flashed a lot of power in the past (Petco also robs Giles of some homers). Only two have double digit steals, one of them being Derek Lee, and only 4 have more than 5. Of the top 10 basestealers (I'm using this as a measure of speed), only one has more than 15 doubles, and that's slugger Bobby Abreu. In other words, with our emphasis on small ball, the trade of Lee, losing Maggs and Valentin, and Frank being hurt, one would expect our team to hit fewer doubles. That basically has no bearing on a team's offense, and is more typical of teams swinging for the fences.

QUOTE(upnorthsox @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 02:46 PM) The 2003 Marlins also traded Managers which was probably the biggest turning point in their season(the '03 Sox on the other hand kept their manager and finished 2nd, again). The 2002 Angels and 2003 Marlins both got huge contributions down the stretch from rookies that season, the Angels with Lackey and FRod and the Marlins with Willis and Cabrera. Those additions helped offset the need for major trades. The two guys on the Angels both came out of the pen, meaning they weren't huge changes (although they pitched well). Willis was absolutely horrible in the playoffs, and Cabrera didn't even start several games (I don't even think he played against the Giants). Beckett absolutely kicked ass, but he had been there all along. The point is that none of these guys were important pieces during the regular season, they were all on the roster, and they played major roles in the playoffs. Contreras is basically an older Beckett: great stuff but can't put things together. Who knows, we might call up Baj or Jenks late and they could end up pitching like K-Rod, or Anderson could provide a boost off the bench like Cabrera. Stuff like that happens in the playoffs. No team is absolutely perfect, and you never know what is going to happen. You could have Sandy Koufax, Bob Gibson, Greg Maddux and Randy Johnson in the rotation and still lose. That's why adding a 4th starting pitcher doesn't have that big an impact. It's a small sample size, so all you need is one great game to make an impact. Also, these guys made a major impact because there were holes on the team that needed to be filled. These guys were given an opportunity to produce largely because of a lack of dependable options. We don't exactly have a lot of places where we need help, certainly fewer than that Angels team or that Marlins team had.

Unless the Chavez thing happens or Houston goes crazy and decides to deal Oswalt, I don't see how we're going to make major improvements. Every starting position player we have contributes something valuable to this team. It's going to be hard for us to replace guys like Uribe and Crede without losing something, and every other spot is pretty much set. As for the pitching, it's starting to look like Shingo is back, meaning I don't really think we need to add another arm in the pen anymore. He was lights out last year, and he has been very good of late. Also, the cost of adding someone like Jason Schmidt or A.J. Burnett seems to outweigh the benefit. I don't really see the point of adding Burnett since it would be unlikely that we resign him. He's pretty much been the same pitcher as Garcia, only on an NL team in a more favorable park. He's good, but I don't think the improvement he would make would be worth giving up our two top prospects. The same goes for Schmidt, only more emphatically. Our starting staff is in good shape. Our top 3 guys have been excellent, Contreras is solid as a #4 starter, and although we have some issues in our 5th spot for the moment, I don't really see that being too important considering our current position. We've got a 10 1/2 game lead and the 5th starter isn't going to start a single game in the playoffs, and our 4th starter is going to see limited action. If we acquire another top starter, one of our top guys is only going to see a couple of starts, which minimizes the potential benefit. The 4th starter just isn't that important. Take a look at pretty much every competitor over the last 5 years. Few if any (the only one I can think of is the Marlins with Beckett/Redman/Willis/Pavano, and I'm not even sure that was the setup, and all of those guys were not effective in the regular season) had four credible starters. The Cardinals only had 4 mediocre starters in Marquis, Williams, Morris, and Suppan. Those last two aren't exactly what I'd call credible starters (or the first two for that matter). The Astros NUMBER 3 starter in the playoffs was Backe, and they made it to game 7 of the NLCS. The Red Sox only had two dependable starters and got help from Wakefield, Lowe, and Arroyo, all of whom got rocked with regularity last year. The Yankees had Mussina and Vazquez as their top two, and they beat Schilling and Pedro. The rest of their guys sucked. Starting pitching depth is simply not an issue in the playoffs, and few if any (certainly none in the AL) have been as good as our top 3. A starter would simply be a waste of assets. This team can beat anyone they run into, so I'd be inclined to leave the team as is.

QUOTE(Milkman delivers @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 11:59 AM) Garland has made Boston his b**** in the past. I think he may have thrown two 1-hitters against them. ERA in the last three years against Boston is 3.20, 1.93 at Fenway. It's only about three or four starts, but there's nothing that supports him getting crushed. Mark's numbers are decent, Freddy's suck (although that's to be expected since he struggled 2 of the last 3 years). The point is that the three of them are pitching great this year, and none of them have shown any reasons to doubt them yet.

QUOTE(VAfan @ Jul 1, 2005 -> 12:35 AM) Yes we could have had him, but signed Uribe for 3 years instead. I bet KW is rethinking that decision now that Uribe's hitting has returned to pitiful form. I'm not suggesting this trade is a slam dunk, but it does give us a more balanced offensive team because it gives us a SS who can hit righties (Vizquel) while keeping one who can hit lefties (Ozuna). Together they will make a lot fewer outs than Uribe/Ozuna. The OBP differential for right handed pitchers between Vizquel and Uribe is .166. That's like having Frank Thomas's OBP instead of Joe Crede's. Yeah, I'm sure he's rethinking signing a 38 year old shortstop for 3 years and 12 million instead of signing a 25 year old shortstop for a lot less money, after only half a season.

Usually our vacations consist of our family flying somewhere and spending our time shopping and eating, with some sight-seeing mixed in (ie San Francisco, New Orleans, and San Antonio, all of which were pretty cool). Our one semi-unusual one I remember were us taking a driving tour through Ohio and Indiana (it was two years ago) for about a week. We hit a lot of neat places. Here's the spots: College Football Hall of Fame (South Bend, Indiana) Pro Football Hall of Fame (Canton, Ohio) NCAA Hall of Champions (Indianapolis, Indiana) Cedar Point Amusement Park (Sandusky?, Ohio) Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Cleveland, Ohio) If we had to do it again, I'd drop the Hall of Champions, and maybe the College Football Hall of Fame, then make the trip a little longer and hit the Louisville Slugger Factory and the Corvette factory. The Pro Football HOF, The Rock and Roll HOF, and Cedar Point were all awesome though.

I'm too lazy to look this up right now, but I'm pretty sure the Astros took a bunch of games off the Cardinals last year when they made their run.

I know Inge is hitting better than Crede, but he's far from a good defender. His error total is killing my keeper team.

QUOTE(Dam8610 @ Jun 30, 2005 -> 11:32 PM) Rightfully so, as THEY'RE HARDLY EVEN IN THE WILD CARD RACE! Everyone needs to stop giving this $200 million failure too much credit. Keep talking, they're still a better team than most. They were sucking for long stretches last year too, and they still would have been in the series if not for one of the greatest collapses in baseball history. They've still got some very good hitters and two horses at the back of the pen. Plus Randy is still there, and Mussina is okay. I wouldn't totally write them off yet. They're 6 out in the division and 3 1/2 out in the wild card. I've seen much bigger leads disappear.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Jun 30, 2005 -> 11:41 PM) Chavez would be awsome. Lefty with good power and the ability to hit for average. Gold Glover at 3rd. It'd be awfully costly. I was torn when the rumor came up while he was sucking, but I'm liking it now more. I figured he'd turn it around, but he did it faster than I expected. I'd be fine with getting him and letting Paulie walk to compensate for his salary. I think it'll take more than Crede and B-Mac though. Also, as I said, I highly doubt he is going anywhere at this point.

QUOTE(drowninginflame @ Jun 30, 2005 -> 11:31 PM) Last night I was looking at their stats and Chavez doesn't seem to be much better, well to me at least Take a look at the stats again. Chavez is a middle of the order hitter. Crede is an 8 or 9 hitter. Plus Chavez has 5 gold gloves. Chavez- 45 runs, 11 homers, 44 RBI, .272 average, .332 OBP Crede- 30, 10, 32, .239, .298 And Chavez plays in an extreme pitchers' park in a much weaker lineup.

I'm not worried about Boston in the ALCS because all we need to do is take one against Schilling or Clement before we run into Wells and Wakefield or Miller. I'd take ANY of our starters (well, not Brandon, you know what I mean) against those guys. Schilling and Clement are pitching 4 games, tops. Anahiem worries me a little. if Escobar comes back he adds another threat, as he has great stuff and was pitching well, and Lackey had our number. Washburn and Byrd don't scare me at all however. I'm definitely not worried about Texas, and outside of the Unit no one really worries me on the Yankees.

I just took a look at the Sporting News I just got in the mail. Commenting on the Giants, they (pretty sure it's Ken Rosenthal) stated that they will not jepordize their team for next season by unloading players at the deadline. They mentioned Schmidt, but their comment was the only reason they are considering it is the potential to find a team desperate for pitching at the deadline. In other words, it's unlikely we get Schmidt and/or Vizquel unless we give up an absolute s***load of talent. As for Chavez, I highly doubt he's getting moved at this point. They're really starting to play well, and they did commit an awful lot of money to him. Crede and B-Mac sounds a little light anyways. Also, the Marlins are going to want major league players in exchange for Burnett since they aren't that far out of contention. I don't really think we can fill that need. B-Mac and Anderson probably aren't exactly what they have in mind.

I was so disallusioned with last year's game that I might not get it. If I do however, I will be using the Northwestern Wildcats. I usually play out a few dynasties with them because I recruit different guys every time and the guys that leave early aren't always the same. I'm not surprised by their impact players, Tim McGarigle is the nation's leading returning tackler, Loren Howard might be a 1st rounder, and Basanez is finally starting to look decent at QB (was decent last year even though his shoulder was messed up). I'll be interested to see how they rank Barry Coefield and Zack Strief, those guys are studs.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jun 30, 2005 -> 02:10 PM) At the cell during the weekend series my line everytime patterson came to bat was "our leadoff hitter has a better ba then your leadoff hitters obp." The only problem with that is the typical Cub fan response is, "What the hell is OBP?"

I doubt the proposed Schmidt/Vizquel deal would work given what the Giants are demanding for Schmidt alone. It sounds like they're looking for two major league pitchers, which is pretty ridiculous. I don't know why any competitor would give them two starting pitchers for one that has struggled most of the year (I laughed out loud when Silva and Garland were mentioned). My guess is they're trying to rip off a team desperate for pitching at the deadline, and if they don't get something really good, they'll just keep him and try to compete once Bonds gets back next year. As for the resurfacing Chavez thing, I'd love to see that happen, although I'm not a fan of B-Mac going. I would think he'd want a hitting prospect given the guys he acquired last year and their current lineup, like Anderson, or maybe Fields. I know we don't want to take out Crede's D, but we don't lose much going to Chavez, if anything (sounds wierd saying that a 5-time gold glover is a drop off, doesn't it?). And I don't think the money would be that big an issue with Konerko potentially gone in the offseason. And on the whole word-twisting comment, I think everyone has either done that or had it happen to them. I think I've been the victim at least 10 times in this thread.

Williams or Green. They seem to have the most potential.