Proposed Deal from a Cubbune Writer..

[upnorthsox]

Do you two get paid by the word for your posts?

[whitesox61382]

Speculation is part of the game, esp when it comes to, um, PREDICTING THE FUTURE.     I also gave you plenty of hard facts. Not a believer in a career ERA?  Well that just breaks me heart - Ponson is another who's "really stepped up" in the last coupe of seasons compared to his earlier years - how is he doing now?    Good #2, would you say?  A #1 maybe?

 

Yes, it's a plus pitch, where did I say otherwise? It's no longer in the mid-90's, and he throws the four-seamer a lot less.    It's a fact. WGN and WCIU radar guns have not clocked higher than 93 all season - mind you I haven't seen every one of his starts; even in 2003, his velocity was down to low-90's.  FOX radar gun I have no idea about, other than to say that it inflates velocities, unless of course you believe Josh Beckett can reach 101 mph and Garland - 96.       

 

Aren't you cute when you attempt to satirize? Stick to reminiscing about your football days. The injury is coming, you're gonna see it in the next 1-2 years. My opinion?  Sure, I admitted it as such a while ago.

 

It's much more important WHY he was struggling with SD and Fla, and whether or not much has changed since.    His 2003 was that hot either.  Only 2002 stands as the only year when Clement has met my standard for a #2 Sox need.   

 

4.00 ERA is a "very good #2" on a playoff team in the AL? I disagree. Hell, Jon Garland might just have a 4.00 ERA season one of htese years, and he is a mediocre #3 at best, nor does he make 6 Mill.

 

Yes, we can all see Patterson's "power" this season, his slugging % is just b****ing'.  But I am sure his knee is sore and hasn't regained full range of motion and is psychologically affecting his mechanical approach at the plate....balablablablabla, I'll take my opinion over yours, thanks.  This year his pitch-selection is even worse. He might figure it out soon - or he might not - and that risk is not worth giving Maggs to the Cubs, not even close.   

 

You WANT Cubs to re-sign the only true All-Star we have and a huge fan favorite?  Obviously their payroll is gonna break 100 plateu a years from now.

A-Gone, Remlinger, Clement, Alou are gone.    That's enough to pay for Maggs (with deferred money of course).

 

Sox can solve the #5 problem without getting rid of Maggs.  And since I don't think either Clement or Willie Mays-Mays will carry this team for the enture year.....

 

The rain-out happened, deal with it. That 4.11 ERA is 4.25+ if he hadn't been bailed out by mother nature.  Do you know what the park Adjusted ERA was for NL in 2003? 4.24.  But even 4.11 isn't particularly great in the National League. 

 

Don't flatter yourself.  How's Greg Miller for Maggs sound?  I am sure Dodgers are salivating over Wright and Pacheco now...

 

Just keep on watching WGN, time will judge which one of us is right.

Some speculation is used to predict the future, but past results/trends(which is what I am basing my opinions and future predictions on) allow one to more accurately predict the future. You on the other hand are throwing darts hoping that one will stick by basing your opinions and future predictions on pure speculation/hunches. Which is likely to be more accurate? What hard facts have you shown?

 

Ponson and Clement aren't in the same boat. Clement's peripherals are far better than Ponsons', and peripherals are usually a good indication of staying power and consistancy.

 

It is easy to understand why he struggled in Florida and San Diego....he was young and inexperienced. I would say that roughly 90%(random guess) of major league pitchers struggle to some extent in their 1st couple of years. There is a pretty common development trend that occurs for most athletes. They generally struggle their 1st couple of years(22-25), they show signs of improvement(25-28), they reach their prime(28-33), they show signs of regressing(33-36), they hit the downside of their career(36+). Clement fits this trend perfectly and like I mentioned above, his impressive peripherals suggest staying power and consistancy.

 

People often have a misconception of what the average ERA for a teams #1 starter, #2 starter, ect is. They are often surprised to find that it is much higher than expected. A poster by the name of Boogs(from the ESPN board) did some research in which he took the 5 pitchers with the most starts and ranked them by ERA. He than took the average ERA for each #1 starter, #2 starter, ect, and the numbers were much higher than expected. He also did research on only playoffs teams to show what the "better" #1 starter, #2 starter, ect ERA average was. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I believe that the playoff teams average ERA for a #1 starter was around 3.40-3.50; #2 starter was around 3.90-4.00: #3 starter was around 4.30-4.40, ect. The average ERA for a starter in the NL in 2003 was 4.43, which is to say that was the ERA of the "average" #3 starter. So Clement's ERA of 4.11 would be considered a solid #2 starters ERA. So based on statistics Clement was a solid #2 starter in 2003 and a #1 starter in 2002. No one gives two rat s***s if he mets your standards for a #2 starter.

 

Yes, a 4.00 ERA is close to the average ERA for a playoff teams #2 starter. If you take the 5 pitchers with the most starts and rank them as #1 starter, #2 starter, ect based on ERA, than these would be your #2 starters for the 2003 AL playoff teams:

 

Yankees - Clemens 3.91 ERA

Red Sox - Wakefield 4.09 ERA

Twins - Radke 4.49 ERA

A's - Mulder 3.13 ERA

average = 3.905

 

As you can see a 4.00 ERA isn't that far off from the average ERA for a 2003 AL playoff team. Like I said, you would be surprised how high the ERA's are for an average starter.

 

This difference between my opinion and your opinion on recovery time and the affects of a knee injury are seperated by personal experience. Which do you think is more accurate, someone who has 1st hand experience or someone who is throwing darts at a board? Not only do I have personal experience to back up my opinion, but quite a few examples in all sports. The best examples are in football(since there are more ACL injuries and a much larger sample size). Like clockwork, players recovering from ACL surgury almost always have a so-so year in their 1st year back, but follow it up with 2nd year that resembles their pre-injury numbers(EJames and JLewis are a couple of prime examples).

 

Patterson's plate disipline has actually improved so far this season.

 

before 2004: 1094 AB/43 BB = 25.44 AB/BB

2004: 161 AB/12 BB = 13.42 AB/BB

 

before 2004: 1094 AB/266 SO = 4.11 AB/SO

2004: 161 AB/37 SO = 4.35 AB/SO

 

Next time check the stats before you "speculate" about something that isn't true. The defense rests.

 

ps sorry about the length

[BrandoFan]

Some speculation is used to predict the future, but past results/trends(which is what I am basing my opinions and future predictions on) allow one to more accurately predict the future. You on the other hand are throwing darts hoping that one will stick by basing your opinions and future predictions on pure speculation/hunches. Which is likely to be more accurate? What hard facts have you shown?

 

Ponson and Clement aren't in the same boat. Clement's peripherals are far better than Ponsons', and peripherals are usually a good indication of staying power and consistancy.

 

It is easy to understand why he struggled in Florida and San Diego....he was young and inexperienced. I would say that roughly 90%(random guess) of major league pitchers struggle to some extent in their 1st couple of years. There is a pretty common development trend that occurs for most athletes. They generally struggle their 1st couple of years(22-25), they show signs of improvement(25-28), they reach their prime(28-33), they show signs of regressing(33-36), they hit the downside of their career(36+). Clement fits this trend perfectly and like I mentioned above, his impressive peripherals suggest staying power and consistancy.

 

People often have a misconception of what the average ERA for a teams #1 starter, #2 starter, ect is. They are often surprised to find that it is much higher than expected. A poster by the name of Boogs(from the ESPN board) did some research in which he took the 5 pitchers with the most starts and ranked them by ERA. He than took the average ERA for each #1 starter, #2 starter, ect, and the numbers were much higher than expected. He also did research on only playoffs teams to show what the "better" #1 starter, #2 starter, ect ERA average was. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I believe that the playoff teams average ERA for a #1 starter was around 3.40-3.50; #2 starter was around 3.90-4.00: #3 starter was around 4.30-4.40, ect. The average ERA for a starter in the NL in 2003 was 4.43, which is to say that was the ERA of the "average" #3 starter. So Clement's ERA of 4.11 would be considered a solid #2 starters ERA. So based on statistics Clement was a solid #2 starter in 2003 and a #1 starter in 2002. No one gives two rat s***s if he mets your standards for a #2 starter.

 

Yes, a 4.00 ERA is close to the average ERA for a playoff teams #2 starter. If you take the 5 pitchers with the most starts and rank them as #1 starter, #2 starter, ect based on ERA, than these would be your #2 starters for the 2003 AL playoff teams:

 

Yankees - Clemens 3.91 ERA

Red Sox - Wakefield 4.09 ERA

Twins - Radke 4.49 ERA

A's - Mulder 3.13 ERA

average = 3.905

 

As you can see a 4.00 ERA isn't that far off from the average ERA for a 2003 AL playoff team. Like I said, you would be surprised how high the ERA's are for an average starter.

 

This difference between my opinion and your opinion on recovery time and the affects of a knee injury are seperated by personal experience. Which do you think is more accurate, someone who has 1st hand experience or someone who is throwing darts at a board? Not only do I have personal experience to back up my opinion, but quite a few examples in all sports. The best examples are in football(since there are more ACL injuries and a much larger sample size). Like clockwork, players recovering from ACL surgury almost always have a so-so year in their 1st year back, but follow it up with 2nd year that resembles their pre-injury numbers(EJames and JLewis are a couple of prime examples).

 

Patterson's plate disipline has actually improved so far this season.

 

before 2004: 1094 AB/43 BB = 25.44 AB/BB

2004: 161 AB/12 BB = 13.42 AB/BB

 

before 2004: 1094 AB/266 SO = 4.11 AB/SO

2004: 161 AB/37 SO = 4.35 AB/SO

 

Next time check the stats before you "speculate" about something that isn't true. The defense rests.

 

ps sorry about the length

Meh.

 

Called Ponson. Called Colon. Called Maddux. And now I am calling on Clement to nose-dive, regardless of the peripherals. 3.75+ ERA in NL, in that park by year's end. Still a good pitcher even when transposed to AL, but nothing special. One of these days, that slider is gonna catch up to him. Book it.

 

Whereas I think 2002 was a high-point and it will go down from there - or at least it will level off. I know what I see - right now his slider is unhittable, but he relies on it more often and his fastball lost a couple mph from 2002.

 

Maybe your comprehension needs a little working on. I said a "VERY GOOD #2 ON A PLAYOFF TEAM" - what you gave me is AVERAGE #2 on a playoff team - 3.90 ERA crap. Mark Mulder, Kerry Wood in 2003; Shilling, Brown, Zambrano in 2004....THEN I can give up Magglio Ordonez, knowing we got a stud, a "difference maker" in return. Hell, I expect Buerhle to register a 3.60 ERA and Loaiza - 3.75. Clement will be fighting with Judy for the 3rd spot.

 

No, the difference between my opinion and your opinion is that I trust my opinion and yours is irrelevant to Corey being hopeless at the plate. What does football have to do with his confidence level, his pitch selection, hand-eye coordination, batspeed and mechanics?

 

He is fast and quick RIGHT NOW - and his defense is still average when it's all said and done. He is easily 90-95% speed wise. But he is not fundamentally smart and it has nothing whatsoever to do with his injury - just as Pierre is not a smart outfielder with a toddler's arm. Stolen bases? Patterson DOESN'T WANT TO RUN - HE WANTS TO SLUG! He sees himself as a #3 hitter, has admitted it in the interviews many times, so if you think he's gonna start stealing 30-40 bases, you're kidding yourself, he is not stupid and will not want to get hurt taking a beating on the pads as he gets closer to FA...................And why are you giving me his WALK totals as proof of his improved eye? Watch a game and you'll see that his PITCH SELECTION is absolutely brutal against RHP, which ideally should be his bread and butter if indeed he has "figured things out" as you claim.........Once his flukey start against LHP subsides, you'll see that OPS drop below 700

 

Sox cannot wait for Patterson to blossom. Right now he is not a better player than Rowand, with Rowand at least having an excuse that he doesn't get playing time. C-Pat is still dumb. Over-anxious. Mechanically suspect. Perhaps still has a hang-up about the knee injury - but if that's true, why should it get better once he switches the league.

 

To wit:

 

1. No way Maggs is traded to the Cubs. Might as well fold the franchise.

2. Sox will not be better off with 4.00 ERA Clement and Corey Mays IMO.

3 Clement's been due for an injury. Patterson might be uncoachable.

4. Kelly Wunsch is not a throw-in, but actually pretty solid when healthy - and with the imminent Koch collapse, Politte suckdom and Marte blowing saves left and right....giving away another solid reliever is not that great of a move.

5. Sox have a #5 in Show. #4 in Garland. #3 in Loaiza. #2 in Buerhle. We need a proven ace for prospects, not for Magglio.

 

Don't agree? Don't care.

[soxman352000]

This writer was clearly doing some crack when he wrote this. What a dumbass idea I don't want Corey Patterson on my team