Ahh Mariotti's Back...

[LVSoxFan]

He's now officially calling out for KW for not taking bold steps before the trade deadline to ensure another White Sox playoff team.

 

Now I'm more than willing to listen to critics of the Sox, but I'm curious whom he thinks we were supposed to pick up.

 

-There were no starters available

 

-Soriano? So we supposedly were offering Pods but not McCarthy for Soriano; how would Soriano solve our starting pitcher issue?

 

-He mentions how the NY Yankees made some big trades but as far as I know we're not hurting anywhere else in the lineup except STARTING PITCHERS

 

-He refers to Vazquez as five-and-dive (fair enough) but to Buehrle as basically a worn-out has been, which I think is more than a bit premature (guess we'll find out tonight)

 

The only point he did make was that if Mac was too valuable to trade away with Pods for Soriano, then why is not Mac starting? I'll give him that. But no I will not be starting another "Move Vasquez to the bullpen!" thread.

 

Bottom line: Mariotti is has just put a plate, utensils and a nice placemat in front of himself, for eating crow if this lineup (which he heralded as brilliant last winter) finally clicks.

 

[Hangar18]

I think its interesting that he got a big paycheck/contract extension.

That'll teach the editors to not back their writers it seems ......

[LosMediasBlancas]

The curse of the Jay is lifted!!

We'll get red hot now, book it.

[S720]

He's now officially calling out for KW for not taking bold steps before the trade deadline to ensure another White Sox playoff team.

 

Now I'm more than willing to listen to critics of the Sox, but I'm curious whom he thinks we were supposed to pick up.

 

-There were no starters available

 

-Soriano? So we supposedly were offering Pods but not McCarthy for Soriano; how would Soriano solve our starting pitcher issue?

 

-He mentions how the NY Yankees made some big trades but as far as I know we're not hurting anywhere else in the lineup except STARTING PITCHERS

 

-He refers to Vazquez as five-and-dive (fair enough) but to Buehrle as basically a worn-out has been, which I think is more than a bit premature (guess we'll find out tonight)

 

The only point he did make was that if Mac was too valuable to trade away with Pods for Soriano, then why is not Mac starting? I'll give him that. But no I will not be starting another "Move Vasquez to the bullpen!" thread.

 

Bottom line: Mariotti is has just put a plate, utensils and a nice placemat in front of himself, for eating crow if this lineup (which he heralded as brilliant last winter) finally clicks.

 

 

 

What else do you think he is going to say, especially he has been brewing inside all these hate and anger at the White Sox team while being on "reluctant" vacation! Negativism always reproduces negativism...

[Milkman delivers]

He's now officially calling out for KW for not taking bold steps before the trade deadline to ensure another White Sox playoff team.

 

Now I'm more than willing to listen to critics of the Sox, but I'm curious whom he thinks we were supposed to pick up.

 

-There were no starters available

 

-Soriano? So we supposedly were offering Pods but not McCarthy for Soriano; how would Soriano solve our starting pitcher issue?

 

-He mentions how the NY Yankees made some big trades but as far as I know we're not hurting anywhere else in the lineup except STARTING PITCHERS

 

-He refers to Vazquez as five-and-dive (fair enough) but to Buehrle as basically a worn-out has been, which I think is more than a bit premature (guess we'll find out tonight)

 

The only point he did make was that if Mac was too valuable to trade away with Pods for Soriano, then why is not Mac starting? I'll give him that. But no I will not be starting another "Move Vasquez to the bullpen!" thread.

 

Bottom line: Mariotti is has just put a plate, utensils and a nice placemat in front of himself, for eating crow if this lineup (which he heralded as brilliant last winter) finally clicks.

 

 

Like you said, that line makes sense.

 

And I'll say it again. We really could've used a respectable 4th OFer to play CF every few days. I swear, Mackowiak costs us runs every single game he plays CF. That can end up really hurting us in the end.

[NorthSideSox72]

Like you said, that line makes sense.

 

And I'll say it again. We really could've used a respectable 4th OFer to play CF every few days. I swear, Mackowiak costs us runs every single game he plays CF. That can end up really hurting us in the end.

Our 4th OF is sooooooooooo not a concern right now, in comparison to our starting pitching, or inconsistent defense as a team, and the lack of clutch hitting (until the last few games).

 

Besides, most teams would drool over having a 4th OF as good as Mack. Is he a starting quality CF? No, that's why he's the 4th OF. He provides a good bat, and can play almost every position on the field. The only "problem" with Mack isn't his problem at all - it is that Ozzie plays him in CF too often. If he played once every dozen games out there (and spelled Pods and Dye as well) instead of once every three, it would be a non-issue.

[Milkman delivers]

Our 4th OF is sooooooooooo not a concern right now, in comparison to our starting pitching, or inconsistent defense as a team, and the lack of clutch hitting (until the last few games).

 

Besides, most teams would drool over having a 4th OF as good as Mack. Is he a starting quality CF? No, that's why he's the 4th OF. He provides a good bat, and can play almost every position on the field. The only "problem" with Mack isn't his problem at all - it is that Ozzie plays him in CF too often. If he played once every dozen games out there (and spelled Pods and Dye as well) instead of once every three, it would be a non-issue.

 

You just told me all of the things I've been saying for a while now.

 

And 4th OF is sooooooooo a concern because our 4th OF starts every third day (as you said) and he costs us every time.

 

I'm serious when I say he costs us at least one run in every game he starts. That adds up, and I'd be willing to bet it has been the difference in losing or winning some games. In such a tight race, we can't afford to lose so many games.

 

Yes, I understand that the pitching is the problem (another thing I've been harping on for a while), but since the 4th OF is less of a concern, we shouldn't even bother with upgrading it at all? It is still an aspect of the team, and it still hurts us.

[CanOfCorn]

I hate getting in pissing matches over this Jay guy and in fact I didn't read today's article, but after reading your summary, and I agree with some of what he says, but since when is a 27 yo washed up?

 

Buehrle doesn't throw hard, he doesn't throw anything that torques his arm too much, could it be *gasp* that he has dead arm from throwing extra innings last year? Or *gasp* that a pitcher can't have a no-hitter every game? Or *stunned* that every player, including the best that ever lived had slumps that sometimes lasted an entire year?

 

I mean, c'mon, I'm sure Marriotti even has a couple weeks where he looks at his articles and says, "Meh." I know he's just stirring things up, but saying something stupid is...well...stupid.

[NorthSideSox72]

You just told me all of the things I've been saying for a while now.

 

And 4th OF is sooooooooo a concern because our 4th OF starts every third day (as you said) and he costs us every time.

 

I'm serious when I say he costs us at least one run in every game he starts. That adds up, and I'd be willing to bet it has been the difference in losing or winning some games. In such a tight race, we can't afford to lose so many games.

 

Yes, I understand that the pitching is the problem (another thing I've been harping on for a while), but since the 4th OF is less of a concern, we shouldn't even bother with upgrading it at all? It is still an aspect of the team, and it still hurts us.

I just don't think that he costs us a run a game - I think that is a huge exagerration. I think he MAY have cost us a few runs all season. And his bat has more than made up for that. So as far as backup OF's go, you aren't going to get much better.

 

All this is solved if Ozzie just realizes that Anderson is now ready to play every day, and he starts doing that. Putting Mack in there every third game made sense when Anderson was hitting .150. Now he is getting the hang of it, so its time to push Mack back to an occasional backup at each OF position - allowing him to play about every third or fourth day, but only once every 9-12 games at any one position.

[Milkman delivers]

I just don't think that he costs us a run a game - I think that is a huge exagerration. I think he MAY have cost us a few runs all season. And his bat has more than made up for that. So as far as backup OF's go, you aren't going to get much better.

 

All this is solved if Ozzie just realizes that Anderson is now ready to play every day, and he starts doing that. Putting Mack in there every third game made sense when Anderson was hitting .150. Now he is getting the hang of it, so its time to push Mack back to an occasional backup at each OF position - allowing him to play about every third or fourth day, but only once every 9-12 games at any one position.

 

Yes, I understand all of that. But we know Ozzie will continue to use him out there for matchup purposes. And if we had a legitimate backup for CF, he would hopefully use him instead.

 

And you don't believe Mackowiak gives up a run a game with his defense? Fine, then it's a run every two games. He makes a mistake every game, that is a fact. It is like clockwork. He will always make a mistake. And when you have headcases like Vazquez and Buehrle, who can't pitch over mistakes, or Garcia, who likes to show up his teammates, you have a problem.

[Flash Tizzle]

Or *stunned* that every player, including the best that ever lived had slumps that sometimes lasted an entire year?

I wouldn't expect Santana or Liriano to experience a "Buehrle slump" (which completely redefines slump, because slumps typically END within several starts) anytime soon. I'd like to see either give up more than 5 ER in ANY game pitched, let alone five straight.

 

The last month, his numbers have been atrocious. Certaintly not those you'd expect from a #1, #2 starter. It's enough to vomit. If he doesn't get back on track later this evening with atleast a quality outting, I'm officially removing "slump" from any discussions relating to Buehrle. At which point it's seriously time to examine his health.

 

Luckily for Mark, he's pitched well against Kansas City this year. Both him and the team need a victory.

Edited August 1, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[LVSoxFan]

I agree with the person who says we need to just leave Anderson in and let him do his thing; he's coming along, and like Milkman says, he's not costing us any runs in CF.

 

I also believe that as Buehrle goes, so the Sox will go for the rest of the season. He is, after all, our #1 starter.

[Milkman delivers]

I agree with the person who says we need to just leave Anderson in and let him do his thing; he's coming along, and like Milkman says, he's not costing us any runs in CF.

 

I also believe that as Buehrle goes, so the Sox will go for the rest of the season. He is, after all, our #1 starter.

 

For the first bold part, everyone agrees that BA should start almost every game. That is, except for Ozzie.

 

For the second bold part, Buehrle is not our #1 starter.

[BigSqwert]

He is, after all, our #1 starter.

Not sure how you can say that.

[LVSoxFan]

Um, you mean Contreras is?

 

What I'm saying is (he was last year!) that even in bad games for him in the past, Buehrle has always given us a CHANCE, and lots of innings to boot.

 

And if somebody as reliable as him can't even get to five this season and continues to get shelled, I stand by my claim: as Buehrle goes, the Sox go.

 

How could we ever compensate for that?

 

I'm not trying to be fatalistic, just pointing out how vital he is to our starting rotation.

[Flash Tizzle]

I also believe that as Buehrle goes, so the Sox will go for the rest of the season. He is, after all, our #1 starter.

bullspiff. He has officially lost this title until his old form is regained.

 

Anyways, the cliche of attaching our success to Buehrles isn't exactly truthful. If the remaining starters were to regain form and pitch to or exceed expectations for the remainder of the season, it's possible to overcome Buehrle's crap-slinging. That's to say if he doesn't significantly improve.

[LVSoxFan]

Fine, you want to be on that? I don't.

 

If Buehrle doesn't regain form, who do we have behind him? We've got Contreras and Garland.

 

Freddy's all over the place, and Javy is five and dive.

 

That means two reliable starters and three question marks. Buehrle was never a question mark last year, whereas Garland had a shaky second half, El Duque was all over the place, Contreras had a crap first half.

 

Through it all, Buehrle was there, pitching eight inning games.

 

If you think we're going to muscle through the season if he continues in his slide, well: you're entitled to your opinion.

 

I stand by my statement.

[Shamrock4Life]

i think the mariotti article was just about right on this morning.

[LVSoxFan]

 

//runs for cover...

[YASNY]

"As Buehrle goes, so goes the White Sox."

 

That's actually quite insightful.

[LVSoxFan]

Do I detect the color green here?

[YASNY]

Do I detect the color green here?

 

Not at all.

[Flash Tizzle]

If you think we're going to muscle through the season if he continues in his slide, well: you're entitled to your opinion.

 

I stand by my statement.

We need to adopt a board memorandum to permanently remove all arguments which cite last season. Whether that be how "Cleveland had a big deficit and came back!!111" or Buehlre pitched well last season and we won the World Series. Therefore if he doesn't win, obviously, we won't either.

 

And with you mentioning last years second half troubles of Hernandez and Garland, is it not possible Buehlre can experience the same without a dire affect?

 

If our remaining starters are consistent -- which in itself would be a monumental feat -- it's possible to absorb Buehlre's troubles.

 

I just don't believe he alone determines whether we succeed or fail. Since none of our remaining starters (perhaps aside from Contreras) are what you would consider "dominating," their success isn't guaranteed. Quality outtings are just as common as poor ones. Vazquez and Garcia are no different than Buehrle in this regard.

 

Would it be any different if Vazquez and Garcia pitched well and Buehlre didn't opposed to Buehlre and Garcia pitching well and Vazquez faltering? Ultimately, of our five starters, we'll need 4/5 to consistently pitch quality games. Doesn't matter who fits the description. You could just as easily say "where Garcia/Vazquez goes, so goes this team."

Edited August 1, 2006 by Flash Tizzle

[Milkman delivers]

"As Buehrle goes, so goes the White Sox."

 

That's actually quite insightful.

 

I would say, "as the rotation goes, so go the White Sox."

 

But, that could be said of any team in baseball.

 

When the Sox rotation was just mediocre in the beginning of the year, the team rolled because the offense could cover that up. Ever since the rotation has been bad, the team has struggled because our great offense still isn't enough to mask such terrible pitching.

[Steff]

"As Buehrle goes, so goes the White Sox."

 

That's actually quite insightful.

 

 

Very actually.