Jordan4life_2007 Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) Who are you taking out of the staff to get RJ in though? That's my question. Of all the Yankee pitchers, he was probably the most arguable...but considering USCF and how much the wind benefits RHB and the fact that he's a year older, I'm just not sure I could even see him putting up a sub-4.00 ERA. Also, from how Chacon pitched in the second half of last year, one could argue him over Vazquez or McCarthy - same thing with Wang. I just so happen to love Vazquez having looked at his peripherals from the past couple years and think he is in for a very good year with the Sox, so I'm only ever going to argue for him. McCarthy one could argue over, but it would be hard to with no bias. I wouldn't take RJ at this point in is career over any of our guys. No bias there. Now if we're talking about even a 35 or 36 year old Randy, I would take him over any of our guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 23, 2006 -> 04:44 PM) Who are you taking out of the staff to get RJ in though? That's my question. Of all the Yankee pitchers, he was probably the most arguable...but considering USCF and how much the wind benefits RHB and the fact that he's a year older, I'm just not sure I could even see him putting up a sub-4.00 ERA. Also, from how Chacon pitched in the second half of last year, one could argue him over Vazquez or McCarthy - same thing with Wang. I just so happen to love Vazquez having looked at his peripherals from the past couple years and think he is in for a very good year with the Sox, so I'm only ever going to argue for him. McCarthy one could argue over, but it would be hard to with no bias. For the long haul, I wouldn't take him since he is ancient. For this year, I'd take him over anyone but Buehrle and Garcia. Contreras and Garland have 2 decent years between them thus far, Vazquez is still a question mark until he starts pitching like his old self, and McCarthy has about 12 career starts to his credit. To be fair, there's no guarantee that any of our starters puts up a sub-4 ERA, although Buehrle is very likely and Garcia has done it the last two years. You could also argue that our guys benefited from a very good defense much like Randy benefited from a very good offense. Our staff is good, but it's not like our #3 starter won the Cy Young last year. Don't give me that crap with Chacon and Wang though. Those guys aren't very good at all. Edited February 24, 2006 by ZoomSlowik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:39 PM) Don't give me that crap with Chacon and Wang though. Those guys aren't very good at all. Chacon was always a somewhat decent pitcher...he was an All-Star in 2003 and was off to a fairly good start as well...then Colorado f***ed with him and put him into a closer's role, which was probably the stupidest thing they could have done at that point...and he was again off to a solid start in Colorado this past year before being traded to the Yankees, where he put up a 2.85 ERA in 70 some innings to go along with a 1.22 WHIP...the WHIP isn't outstanding, but it is still fairly solid. Wang is only 26 and has put up fairly solid numbers throughout the minors, and while he may not be able to crack the Sox 6, he isn't bad...probably better than mediocre. Given, it was his rookie season, and the league hadn't seen him yet, so perhaps they will adjust to him and start hitting him harder next year...just have to wait and see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:16 PM) Wang is only 26 and has put up fairly solid numbers throughout the minors, and while he may not be able to crack the Sox 6, he isn't bad...probably better than mediocre. Given, it was his rookie season, and the league hadn't seen him yet, so perhaps they will adjust to him and start hitting him harder next year...just have to wait and see. IMO, the big concern with Wang is that despite being quite young, he's never thrown more than 122 innings at any level as far as BP tells me. Which to me, suggests that he might be a wee bit of an injury risk. BMac, for example threw 172 innings in 2004, between the 3 levels he played at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:16 PM) Chacon was always a somewhat decent pitcher...he was an All-Star in 2003 and was off to a fairly good start as well...then Colorado f***ed with him and put him into a closer's role, which was probably the stupidest thing they could have done at that point...and he was again off to a solid start in Colorado this past year before being traded to the Yankees, where he put up a 2.85 ERA in 70 some innings to go along with a 1.22 WHIP...the WHIP isn't outstanding, but it is still fairly solid. Wang is only 26 and has put up fairly solid numbers throughout the minors, and while he may not be able to crack the Sox 6, he isn't bad...probably better than mediocre. Given, it was his rookie season, and the league hadn't seen him yet, so perhaps they will adjust to him and start hitting him harder next year...just have to wait and see. I'm just looking at the numbers, and the only thing even close to encouraging from either of them is what Chacon did for the Yankees in the second half of last year. Even then, his WHIP was pretty high. Before that he only had one year with an ERA under 5, and that was at 4.60. It wasn't just Coors Field that killed him either, he was also pretty bad on the road. Plus he's never pitched over 160 innings in a season. I'm considering the second half of last year a major fluke until further notice. As for Wang, he was decidedly mediocre last year. His ERA was respectable, but he had very few strikeouts and put a lot of guys on base. That's not a good sign for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:33 PM) As for Wang, he was decidedly mediocre last year. His ERA was respectable, but he had very few strikeouts and put a lot of guys on base. That's not a good sign for the future. Wang is a sinker-ball pitcher, so just like for Garland, Strikeouts aren't necessarily that important for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) Wang is a sinker-ball pitcher, so just like for Garland, Strikeouts aren't necessarily that important for him. Garland also cut his walk rate considerably from previous years to this year. If you're pitching to contact while putting that many guys on, you're playing with fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(ZoomSlowik @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 12:37 PM) Garland also cut his walk rate considerably from previous years to this year. If you're pitching to contact while putting that many guys on, you're playing with fire. On that I won't disagree with you. The only part i took issue with was talking about his strikeout numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2006 -> 03:38 PM) On that I won't disagree with you. The only part i took issue with was talking about his strikeout numbers. I know strikeouts aren't everything, but for non-strikeout pitchers giving up a lot of free passes (Wang was on pace for about 55 if he pitched 200 innings) is more harmful than a guy that has a high strikeout total. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redandwhite Posted February 25, 2006 Share Posted February 25, 2006 if george already knows whose going to win it all, why should we even play the season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Sheffield has back spasms, and Pavano may start the season on the DL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 I am trying to remember the last time the Yankees had a team that wasn't a threat to win it all. The Yankees are the premier organization in sports. Always in or around the playoffs. 8 consecutive division wins, 10 losing seasons in the past 80 years, 39 AL pennants, 26 World Champships. No white flags. George can talk all he wants, the Yankees have earned it. With that comes a price, every team wants to knock the Yankees on their ass and it feels so good to watch them fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baines3 Posted March 12, 2006 Share Posted March 12, 2006 I have heard Steinbrenner say that before, it won't happy. He will have another long look on his face after our White Sox sweep the Yankees out of the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin57 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 (edited) When the Yankees do fall, will Torre's job be at risk? Oh, yes, he's one of the greatest managers around, but King George has little patience with his subordinates. Edited March 13, 2006 by kevin57 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 13, 2006 Share Posted March 13, 2006 QUOTE(kevin57 @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 05:56 PM) When the Yankees do fall, will Torre's job be at risk? Oh, yes, he's one of the greatest managers around, but King George has little patience with his subordinates. The Yankees have "Failed" each of the last 5 years, there are constant rumors over Torre's head, yet every year it seems that they stick with him. I think he's as close to controlling his own destiny as any Yankee coach could be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLAK Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 QUOTE(kevin57 @ Mar 12, 2006 -> 07:56 PM) When the Yankees do fall, will Torre's job be at risk? Oh, yes, he's one of the greatest managers around, but King George has little patience with his subordinates. one of the greatest managers around? The average salary in the American League last year was $75,275,804 and finished 81 and 81. Torre managed a team with $208,306,817 in salaries so he should have gone 224 and -62. Instead he finished with 95 wins or 129 games below expectations! Yeah, I'm joking with the numbers, but there is so much talent on that roster that he has to be considered an under performer. Ozzie won 99 games with $75,178,000. Before he got the Jankee's he was 894 - 1003. He's Joe Blow without King George. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 QUOTE(TLAK @ Mar 13, 2006 -> 09:46 PM) one of the greatest managers around? The average salary in the American League last year was $75,275,804 and finished 81 and 81. Torre managed a team with $208,306,817 in salaries so he should have gone 224 and -62. Instead he finished with 95 wins or 129 games below expectations! Yeah, I'm joking with the numbers, but there is so much talent on that roster that he has to be considered an under performer. Ozzie won 99 games with $75,178,000. Before he got the Jankee's he was 894 - 1003. He's Joe Blow without King George. But, he'll probably make the HOF as a manager. :headshake 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.