Chisoxfn Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 In terms of the Sox, its not necessarily best to have one. They need many quality guys and with the bargains that can be had out there, they would be in much better shape with 3 good players then with one great player. A bullpen will make or break a mediocre club. As witesoxfan pointed out the Blue Jays were very very good, they had lousy starting (Minus Halladay) and a s***ty pen. That pen is what kept them from being a lot better, although they still would of had to pass the BoSox. If this team plans on competing with what it has, they better have one hell of a bullpen. I have no problem in the Sox putting faith in Wright, Munoz and Sanders/Majewski, but it scares the hell out of me to think they need to count on all those guys coming through, count on Scho and another young starter coming through and count on Harris and Reed coming through. As of now thats how it stands and it will continue to stand that way until the Sox make moves. They obviously have a self imposed salary restriction and JR won't let Kenny add any salary even if Kenny plans on moving other players. I think JR's told him, NO, first move the players, then spend that money, I don't want to have to worry about getting stuck with it (Remember, kenny thought he could of dealt Royce and we know how that worked). I think Colon was the only player Kenny was given the permission to sign without having already cleared the necessary money. In this case the Sox had a lot of deferred money partially because they get a lot of added revenue and secondly because they don't have any guarantee that they could unload some of these guys. Now that Colon is gone, before the Sox do anything, they are going to have to create room under the pre-determined budget. Thats what the winter meetings will be for and I'd have to think the Sox need to make two salary cutting moves during the meetings and then hope that some of the guys they really want are still out there (Ponson and someone else). Once that happens they can at least get a lot more comfortable and then work on clearing other salary and making other moves, but in this case they now have a few things taken care of and would be in a hell of a lot better position. Right now the Sox need at least one good starting pitcher (I'd like two and if I were the gm I'd get two), at least two relievers (I'd like three, but one of them would be acquired by moving Koch for Weathers and if the Sox need to, throw in someone like Ginter or some type of player that may not have a future with the org), a 2nd baseman or cf (They need one of the two positions, imo, unless they have addressed all the other needs with 2 starters, and 3 relievers and have found a leadoff hitter another way). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Bingo. You have to get the most "bang for your buck". ....all the while remembering the you can't cross a certain line (when you fill up on 300K rookies because they have the best dollar/prodcution ratio) because if you do you will never COMPETE-- and in Sox case another year of no playoffs will be disasterous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 ....all the while remembering the you can't cross a certain line (when you fill up on 300K rookies because they have the best dollar/prodcution ratio) because if you do you will never COMPETE-- and in Sox case another year of no playoffs will be disasterous. It's definitely a balancing act. You're right, you have to have some decent veteran ballplayers. Otherwise, you end up like Detroit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 They need many quality guys and with the bargains that can be had out there, they would be in much better shape with 3 good players then with one great player Especially considering that there is NOTHING even remotely great about Colon's career or 2003 season. Ponson + Perez + Sullivan over Colon EASY. Now if it was Pedro, it's another story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 It's definitely a balancing act. You're right, you have to have some decent veteran ballplayers. Otherwise, you end up like Detroit. And on the opposite side of the spectrum there is the Mets and the Orioles and Dodgers of a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Especially considering that there is NOTHING even remotely great about Colon's career or 2003 season. Ponson + Perez + Sullivan over Colon EASY. Now if it was Pedro, it's another story. Agreed, while Colon pitched a heck of a lot of innings and had some great games down the stretch, he wasn't near as effective as he could be and considering his talent he was mediocre. He was still one of the best in the AL though and he will be sorely missed because he could battle and beat any #1 in the majors at any given time, something you can't say about all our guys. I mean who knows what happens with Elo, and Buehrle has had some alarming trends in his WHIP over the past few seasons, although he's still a good pitcher. Now they have a heck of a lot more pressure, plus Garland has more and for the time being another rookie is called into the mix as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Especially considering that there is NOTHING even remotely great about Colon's career or 2003 season. Ponson + Perez + Sullivan over Colon EASY. Now if it was Pedro, it's another story. i don't think we should put Sully on that list... He wasn't offered Arbitration so we can't negotiate with him until ??? .... that means he's gone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Agreed, while Colon pitched a heck of a lot of innings and had some great games down the stretch, he wasn't near as effective as he could be and considering his talent he was mediocre. He was still one of the best in the AL though and he will be sorely missed because he could battle and beat any #1 in the majors at any given time, something you can't say about all our guys. I mean who knows what happens with Elo, and Buehrle has had some alarming trends in his WHIP over the past few seasons, although he's still a good pitcher. Now they have a heck of a lot more pressure, plus Garland has more and for the time being another rookie is called into the mix as well. As things stand right now, there will certainly be more pressure on Buehrle and Loaiza to lead the rotation and for Garland to settle in and become an effective #3. Hopefully, we can start adding some pitchers for a change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 As things stand right now, there will certainly be more pressure on Buehrle and Loaiza to lead the rotation and for Garland to settle in and become an effective #3. Hopefully, we can start adding some pitchers for a change. The only thing Judy can be an effective #3 in is a two-man crossword puzzle-off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 The only thing Judy can be an effective #3 in is a two-man crossword puzzle-off. Why are people so down on JG??? the Kid just turned 24. and the guy everyone is pinning thier hopes on(Ponson), now that Colon isn't an option, is only marginally better. Ponson is a career sub .500 pitcher.. has had only two years where he posted more than 10 wins. And people within his own organization(orioles) last year admitted to pitching him versus lesser pitchers/opponents to boost his win total and make him more marketable to a trade. The fact that you don't hear the orioles in the running for Ponson should say something about him. They have enough money to throw around. Ponson has a lifetime ERA of 4.54 while Garlands is 4.60. JG is 3 years younger and cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSoxShuf Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 This discussion is stupid. Mr f***er JR will never bring in ponson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 Why are people so down on JG??? the Kid just turned 24. and the guy everyone is pinning thier hopes on(Ponson), now that Colon isn't an option, is only marginally better. Ponson is a career sub .500 pitcher.. has had only two years where he posted more than 10 wins. And people within his own organization(orioles) last year admitted to pitching him versus lesser pitchers/opponents to boost his win total and make him more marketable to a trade. The fact that you don't hear the orioles in the running for Ponson should say something about him. They have enough money to throw around. Ponson has a lifetime ERA of 4.54 while Garlands is 4.60. JG is 3 years younger and cheaper. 1. Since his velocity dropped into low-90s, the only thing Judy has going for her is a 6'6 frame that helps his good sinker. That's IT-- his off-speed arsenal is a joke and control deeply mediocre. 2. 99.9 % pitchers in ML and ml are NOT good. I guess sometime in their life, they were 24 years old. 3. In the last 2 years Garland has been pitching in one of the sorrier-hitting divisions in baseball history.....while Ponson had a whole LOT if NY, Boston and Toronto, teams rankes 1-2-3 in runs scored. Something to think about, buddey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 I thought about Ponson BUDDEY Ponson's wins before the trade... 4/10 @ Tampa Bay vs. S. Parris -- 7IP 8H 3R 2ER 0BB 5K -- Run Support=4 4/27 Tampa Bay vs. J. Kennedy -- 6.2IP 7H 3R 3ER 1BB 7K -- Run support =7 5/3 Kansas City vs. R. Hernandez -- 8IP 5H 1R 1ER 1BB 9k -- Runsupport=6 5/9 @Kansas City vs. R. Hernandez -- 7IP 6H 2R 1ER 2BB 6K -- Run support = 5 5/21 @Anehiem vs. A. Sele -- 6IP 9H 4R 4ER 2BB 1K -- RS=7 5/27 Anahiem vs. A. Sele -- 9IP 8H 4R 4ER 2BB 7K -- RS=12 6/1 Texas vs. C. Lewis -- 8IP 7H 4R 4ER 3BB 6K -- RS= 5 6/7 @ STL vs. G. Stephenson -- 9IP 7H 1R 1ER 2BB 8K -- RS=8 6/14 MIL vs G. Rusch -- 6IP 6H 1R 1ER 2BB 4K -- RS=7 6/25 @Tor vs. C. Lidle -- 9IP 10H 2R 2ER 0BB 5K -- RS=9 7/5 Tor vs. C. Lidle -- 8IP 7H 2R 2ER 0BB 4K -- RS=10 7/10 @ SEA vs. F. Garcia -- 9IP 7H 1R 1ER 1BB 6K -- RS=4 7/19 Anahiem vs. K. Appier -- 6.1IP 9H 4R 3ER 2BB 3K -- RS=8 7/25 NYY vs. R. Clemens -- 8.2IP 6H 3R 3ER 3BB 5K -- RS=5 In his 14 wins before the trade deadline Ponson beat 3 pitchers with a winning record. (R. hernandez- 7-5, C. Lewis- 10-9, R. Clemens 17-9) He beat only One playoff team despite playing in a division that has 2 playoff teams. His run support durring those wins was 6.92 -- (I don't think i calculated that right... I used runs during the whole game... I think it should be run while he was pitching.. but i'm to lazy to fix it) A more telling Stat is that ALL of his losses came against playoff teams, or US.He lost to (E. Loiza, B. Colon, J. Burkett, Greg Maddux, A. Pettite, B. Radke) All of whom had winning records...he can't win a when it counts. He's no better than a number 3 pitcher at best...and I wouldn't want to have him pitching for me in a must win situation. as evidenced by his performance in SF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 I just wanted to make sure that the above post was given the proper attention.. I think this shows that In his "breakout" year Ponson was in fact facing inferior opponent in a majority of his wins. Someone in the Baltimore Organization was pretty smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted December 9, 2003 Share Posted December 9, 2003 sssshhhhhhhh******slightly torn right labrum**********shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.