qwerty Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Now if you can add add a pavano( ) Clement, Perez, Radke, Pedro, or whoever to that and having those guys as the top 3 and Contreras and garland as the 4 and 5 starters, we'd have one hell of a rotation. Even then contreras and garland are awfully shaky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Even then contreras and garland are awfully shaky. Garland.....yes but I still think he's a good 5th starter. I think Jose is going to be fine, jmo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Garland.....yes but I still think he's a good 5th starter. I think Jose is going to be fine, jmo. I think contreras will be great for several starts in a row then implode for a couple in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I think contreras will be great for several starts in a row then implode for a couple in a row. We just need someone to slap him around and tell him to throw his fastball, then he'll be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 If we pick up a top 3 quality pitcher, I think before the AS break next year, you'll see Garland move ahead of Contreras in the rotation pecking order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xero Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Eric Milton: I know most of you hate him, but the fact is that he is a great pitcher and this is an off-year. At times he can be a dominant southpaw and I would love to have him in my rotation. Carl Pavano: His #'s are great, there is no denying that, but I'm not really a Carl Pavano fan. He has never had a year like this and It might be hard to match. Going to the AL should hurt him also. He will also be priced way to high for the Chisox. Pedro Martinez: He's great but he's old and expensive; out of the question. Brad Radke: Even though he is up in age, i think he would be perfect for this team. His price might be high in the offseason but it might be worth it. Derek Lowe: I think we can all agree that he is not wanted in Chicago. Jaret Wright: Unless he is with Lee Mazzone, he is of no use. David Wells: I know there might be some bad blood between Chicago and him, but he can still pitch and give you quality starts. Milton: Overrated, that is all I have to say about him Pavano: He is probably the Esteban Loaiza in 04, of 05. Pedro: No way in hell, too much money, rather use it for a younger starter Radke: Wouldn't mind, 3.47 ERA, 11-7, only 19 BB, he could be of some use. Lowe: 4.91 ERA, no thanks Jaret Wright: Why is he even an option? David Wells: :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Even then contreras and garland are awfully shaky. In all honesty, at this point, im more comfortable with Grilli as my 5th starter than Garland. This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that he just has better stuff than John. His curve drops off the table, and his fastball seems to have some nice pop to it. Im not sure if this is because i've just grown sick of watching Garland fold every season, or if I just see better stuff in Grilli. I am not sure which one it is, but I am sure that someone out there wouldnt mind taking a risk on garland, maybe give us some prospects?? what do you guys think?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Parque Posted September 17, 2004 Author Share Posted September 17, 2004 You can't honestly say that the twins have more power then the white sox so the amount of homers that go out in the parks is swayed and inaccurate. Also the minnesota twins have far better piching with radke and santana then the white sox do so road teams have less home runs in the homer dome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 In all honesty, at this point, im more comfortable with Grilli as my 5th starter than Garland. This is just my opinion, but it seems to me that he just has better stuff than John. His curve drops off the table, and his fastball seems to have some nice pop to it. Im not sure if this is because i've just grown sick of watching Garland fold every season, or if I just see better stuff in Grilli. I am not sure which one it is, but I am sure that someone out there wouldnt mind taking a risk on garland, maybe give us some prospects?? what do you guys think?? Interesting perspective. I think Garland has more experience and has been always healthy and when he's on, he's really on. He needs to be smarter, and learn to adjust better ... much better. Hitters adjust to him and he has real trouble adjusting in return. Grilli ... good arm and above average stuff ... if he's healthy. For Jason, that's been a big "if". His control is iffy, at best. In my mind, he's a good depth guy if someone goes down to injury, assuming they can keep him in the organization as I believe he's out of options. Or, he shows something in spring training and then the Sox have a good problem on their hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Interesting perspective. I think Garland has more experience and has been always healthy and when he's on, he's really on. He needs to be smarter, and learn to adjust better ... much better. Hitters adjust to him and he has real trouble adjusting in return. Grilli ... good arm and above average stuff ... if he's healthy. For Jason, that's been a big "if". His control is iffy, at best. In my mind, he's a good depth guy if someone goes down to injury, assuming they can keep him in the organization as I believe he's out of options. Or, he shows something in spring training and then the Sox have a good problem on their hands. I can def see him as a depth guy. Where you have about a 50-50 chance that he will be on for that day. In all fairness, who I really want to see up there in that slot is BMAC, but until then, I still feel uneasy with Garland. I understand that he is a sinkerballer, but it seems like everyone can hit it. Maybe he will flourish with another team, and that is a chance I am willing to take, because at this point, watching him take the mound makes me very very nervous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchetman Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Grilli's "stuff" looks pretty good, but the results aren't great. I think he had an ERA over 4.00 in Charlotte....I think he's good enough to keep around....barely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Grilli's "stuff" looks pretty good, but the results aren't great. I think he had an ERA over 4.00 in Charlotte....I think he's good enough to keep around....barely. That is true, but Borchard was also picked as one of our best prospects in our entire system. Im not sure that their stats in the minors translates too well, especially on charlotte, who did not have such a great season. I think he has osme good pitches, some major league experience, and could possibly at least go .500 for the season Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 While it's great to argue about free agents, if you really want to do this, we should use trades too. Like possibly Oliver Perez from the Pirates... Oh my, wow...because the Pirates would trade him!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
israel4ever Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Buehrle Garcia Contreras 2 new guys, I hope!!! (Clement? Odalis Perez? Pedro? Pavano? Radke? Milton? Millwood?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Oh my, wow...because the Pirates would trade him!?! When i read that i laughed my ass off for about two minutes straight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 JMHO, but I believe that making our bullpen one of the best in the league (Yes, in the league) is a lot more important than just finding another starter... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 JMHO, but I believe that making our bullpen one of the best in the league (Yes, in the league) is a lot more important than just finding another starter... We are one of the least used in the league. Have to quality arms as of right now since adkins have imploded. We really really need help because i would not like to have to rely on mostly triple a guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackBetsy Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Once again, this is almost a good point, except taking a good player away from the twins, usually opens the door for another good player. All they ever do is reload the team, so with radke gone, I would expect a new player to come and and establish himself as just as good if not better No, it is a good point. The Twins' farm system, while stocked with 1B/LF types, is absolutely devoid of major-league ready rotation prospects. That's why you've seen Greisinger, Guerrier, and Mulholland in their 5-hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babybearhater Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 No, it is a good point. The Twins' farm system, while stocked with 1B/LF types, is absolutely devoid of major-league ready rotation prospects. That's why you've seen Greisinger, Guerrier, and Mulholland in their 5-hole. Ah yes, this is why it was so easy to see Johan Santana coming, my bad, I know that minor league prospectus make major leaguers----thats why we have so many aces coming through our system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 You can't honestly say that the twins have more power then the white sox so the amount of homers that go out in the parks is swayed and inaccurate. Also the minnesota twins have far better piching with radke and santana then the white sox do so road teams have less home runs in the homer dome. Butter Parque, I am guessing that you have no clue how park factor stats work, do you? Pack Factor meassures the difference between HR's hit at a specific park versus the HR's hit on the road. For example, you add the # of HR the Sox have hit at home plus the # of HR the opponents have hit at USCF, than divide by the total number of home games. You than divide that by the # of HR the Sox have hit on the road plus the # of HR the opponents have hit on the road, than divide by the total number of road games. If the number you get is greater than 1, than that means that your home park yields more HR's. If the number you get is less than 1, than that means that your home park yields fewer HR's than other parks. Here is the formula written out. ((homeHR + homeHR(allowed))/(home games))/((roadHR + roadHR(allowed))/(road games)) The point is that the team remains consist. It is a meassure of the Sox hitters and pitchers at home versus the Sox hitters and pitchers on the road, so it really doesn't matter if your team has more power than the other team or if the other team has better pitching. Here are the results: USCF 1.356 Philly 1.188 Minn .923 As you can tell by the stats, USCF is a great HR park, in fact, 1.356 is the highest total among all parks, including Coors. The Phillies new park ranks a little above average, but isn't that close to USCF. The Twinky Dome ranks below average for HR hit in their park, that means that the Twins hitters and pitchers have more HR's on the road than at home. So much for the idea that the Twinky Dome is a HR heaven. The fact is that Milton gives up a ton of HR no matter where he pitches, and he would probably give up 40+ if he played for the Sox. He is an extreme flyball pitcher. In fact, out of all the MLB pitchers that qualify, he has the WORST groundball to flyball ratio in the majors(.62), yet you want to put him in the best HR park in the majors(this year). Thats a smart idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Ah yes, this is why it was so easy to see Johan Santana coming, my bad, I know that minor league prospectus make major leaguers----thats why we have so many aces coming through our system He is right when he says that the Twins have very fewer major league ready starting pitching prospects. Sure there are some prospects that slip through the cracks and don't get much attention, but develop into solid players, but the overwhelming majority of good players in the majors today were once top 10 prospects in their organization at some point. In Santana's case, he didn't exactly come out of nowhere. The Twins thought highly enough of him to have him in the majors full time by the time he was 21. While he struggled his 1st 2 years, you could see that he has the stuff(potential) to be a very good pitcher. By 23, he was dominating the majors, and has been doing so the past couple of years. Most 23 year olds are still in the minors, so I wouldn't say that Santana came out of nowhere. Besides, even in Santana's case, he struggled the 1st couple of years in the majors as do most pitching prospects, so the Twins(Sox) should expect the same from any pitching prospect that is used to fill Radke's spot if he leaves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Ah yes, this is why it was so easy to see Johan Santana coming, my bad, I know that minor league prospectus make major leaguers----thats why we have so many aces coming through our system That post reveals how little you know about the Twins farm system... Santana pitched over 120 inning in the Majors, over 2 complete seasons, before ever being placed in the twins farm system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Parque Posted September 17, 2004 Author Share Posted September 17, 2004 As you can tell by the stats, USCF is a great HR park, in fact, 1.356 is the highest total among all parks, including Coors. The Phillies new park ranks a little above average, but isn't that close to USCF. The Twinky Dome ranks below average for HR hit in their park, that means that the Twins hitters and pitchers have more HR's on the road than at home. So much for the idea that the Twinky Dome is a HR heaven. The fact is that Milton gives up a ton of HR no matter where he pitches, and he would probably give up 40+ if he played for the Sox. He is an extreme flyball pitcher. In fact, out of all the MLB pitchers that qualify, he has the WORST groundball to flyball ratio in the majors(.62), yet you want to put him in the best HR park in the majors(this year). Thats a smart idea. You can say whatever you want and provide the wackiest statistics in the world (I don't know how the hell you know that and quite frankly it scares me that you do know). Anyway like I said, I want the White Sox to get Ortiz just to show you what kind of pitcher he really is. For the sake of the White Sox, get Milton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesox61382 Posted September 18, 2004 Share Posted September 18, 2004 You can say whatever you want and provide the wackiest statistics in the world (I don't know how the hell you know that and quite frankly it scares me that you do know). Anyway like I said, I want the White Sox to get Ortiz just to show you what kind of pitcher he really is. For the sake of the White Sox, get Milton. Wackiest stats? They are the most common stats used to show the effects of each park(ie is it a good pitchers park, a good hitters park, or neither). Its a pretty simple, solid, and consistant way to compare parks, instead of your wacky, the Twinky Dome is a HR heaven(one of the funniest things I have heard in a while by the way)with nothing to support it. There is no reason to get mad because you don't understand these simple stats, and that they prove your BS opinion wrong. Furthermore, they are extremely easy to find. Just go to ESPN, MLB, stats, and park factor. It is that simple and doesn't require tons of reasearch or expertise. How can you say that you hope the Sox get Milton? Are you trying to make the Sox consistant losers? You might not like the park factor stats, but you can't debt the fact that Milton has the worst groundball/flyball ratio among major league pitchers that qualified(.62 out of 88 total pitchers). How can that not scary your, or do you not understand the simple groundball/flyball ratio either? Or the fact that he has a career ERA of 4.77. Or the fact that he has never posted an ERA below 4.32. Or the fact that he has posted an ERA of AT LEAST 4.80 in 3 of his last 4 full seasons. Or the fact that he has never given up fewer than 24 HR in a season. Or the fact that he has given up 35+ HR in 3 of his 7 full seasons. Or the fact that USCF is a good HR park(whether you use the park factor stats or your own opinion). Ortiz is not a great pitcher, is certainly not my #1 choice this offseason, and he is a risk(especially with his high walk totals), but I would take him and his 200+ IP, 14+ wins, and sub 4.00 ERA over Milton anyday of the week and twice on Sunday. I have shown why with the use of stats and common knowledge. What have you shown to support your opinion that Milton should be priority #1 for the Sox? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Parque Posted September 18, 2004 Author Share Posted September 18, 2004 There is no way to prove which pitcher is a better option then another pitcher, I've said that before, but you can give estimations on how a player will do based on reputation, statistics, AND your own opinions and observations of that pitcher. I've seen a lot of Eric Milton and plenty of Russ Ortiz on TBS and Turner South, and in my opinion, I liked what I have seen from Milton, bad statistics of not. Frankly, i'm not a big Russ Ortiz fan and have always thought that he was overrated. It's easy to see that most of you hate Eric Milton because he was a Twin. You could see that Milton has much better #'s in the posteseason then Ortiz does. ( Milton Postseason Stats: 1-0, 3 Games, 2 GS, 1.65 ERA, 16.3 INN, 13 H, 3 ER, 3BB, 9 K) (Ortiz Postseason Stats: 3-1, 8 Games, 8 GS, 5.05 ERA, 41 INN, 44 H, 23 ER, 24 BB, 26 K) You guys have to know that some statistics lie, some are true, but some still lie. From seeing both of these pitchers a fair number of times, it is my opinion that Milton is the guy that i would choose to go after. 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.