Building, winning don't mix

[shoota]

False, 9 - 6 with a 4.02 ERA is not spectacular. And it very likely would not have gotten him on the All-Star team if his coach wasn't picking the players.

 

Incorrect, perhaps your confusion is born from thinking the All-Star game evenly divides the halves of a season. Through the first 80 games of the season, Mark Buehrle had an ERA of 3.22.

 

It wasn't until the 81st game of the season against the Cubs that Buehrle's season began to fall apart. Which yes, is the last day of the first half, but would be obtuse to ignore his 3.22 ERA entering the last game of the first half.

 

So I'll say it again: Mark Buehrle had a spectacular first half of 2006.

[hitlesswonder]

Corey Patterson

Victorino

Freel

Clark

Davanon

Delucci

Reed Johnson

Markakis

and these are just some of the non-superstar types that would be a step up from Pods/Anderson/Erstad. Sure some of them are debatable, but it really wouldn't take much to improve on what we had last season.

 

That list is a huge mix talent. First of all Markakis may be on his way to being a superstar. As a 22 year-old rookie he hit .290 with an .800 OPS and is an excellent OF. And he had something like a .900 OPS in the 2nd half. The Sox would have to give up a ton of talent to get him -- and I doubt he's even available.

 

Patterson, Freel, and Johnson are sort of at the next level -- they all had good years, are semi-young and would not be easy to acquire at all.

 

Clark and Davanon I'd rank below that, but they wouldn't be free. And it's decision if it's worth trading talent to get a career .740 OPS OF or if it would be better to go with Fields or Sweeney.

 

Delucci would have been a good signing. I'll agree with that (although he'd definitely need a platoon partner).

[gosox41]

Uribe had about the 11th best SLG% out of all MLB shortstops, and he had the 12th most XBH's. Using both OBP, SLG, and defense, I figure Uribe is probably about the 15th best SS in the league - meaning exactly in the middle - with the potential there to be a top 10 SS in the league next year. It's almost guaranteed that he can't put up a worse year, even with his offseason troubles. I'd probably put him at putting a .725-.750 OPS next year with the capabilities to go up to .800. I find that quite realistic, and so long as the glove shows up too, those will be great numbers.

 

Anderson wasn't good last year overall, but he was a rookie (worst.excuse.evar...I'm using it anyways), and he was pretty respectable beyond June 11th (something to the tune of around .280/.330/.400 - Kalapse/someone else will have the exact numbers in a flash because he/they is/are the man, and I'm too lazy to look it up), but Ozzie for whatever reason refused to give him full-playing time and insisted on platooning Mackowiak and Anderson, killing the defense in CF during the times Mackowiak was out there. Anywaysm, so long as he doesn't party like a mad mofo, and he works his ass off, he should have a respectable year at the plate, and he'll be good in the field.

 

Regarding the Garcia trade - you mentioned that you don't have the time to follow it enough, so I'll just let you know now that the Yankees reportedly turned down Mark Buehrle for Humberto Sanchez, so they are pretty high on him. You weren't going to get Melky along with him for Freddy, especially with a free agent class as deep in mediocre starting pitching as this year was, and seeing as how the Yankees essentially intend to build a World Series winner with the most mediocre starting staff ever, they were pretty much in heaven.

 

I've explained that I don't really feel that CF or SS were holes, and that LF was, so I'm just kinda pissed about that. There were several options available to upgrade LF if only Ozzie didn't absolutely have to, have to, have to have a leadoff hitter than can run fast. If that was the case I would have almost been happier with KW throwing globs and globs of money at Juan Pierre (if only I were serious would it be funny). Had he brought in someone like Trot Nixon or David Dellucci to have in LF, and then either used Perez or Ozuna out there with them, or gone out and gotten like Craig Wilson, Jose Cruz Jr, or Preston Wilson, and then set up such a platoon in LF with Iguchi leading off, I would have been in heaven as a fan. As it is, I'm not nearly as excited, but I have my hopes. I just have to hope Erstad leads off most of the year, because if he does, he's atleast pretty much guaranteed to put up a .333 OBP, and it should be consistently. If he does so, it'll be better than his sub .300 OBP that he put up in the second half last year (which is beyond unacceptable). All I can do is hope.

 

 

So what do you project for Floyd in 2007? Do you expect Gio Gonzalez to have any impact on the big league team?

 

KW preached about how if he traded one of his starting pitchers it would be to help the team win now as well as in the future. Maybe Gonzalez will one day be good--heck I've heard someone say he reminds them of Ron Guidry. I don't see that, especially in 2007. So it comes down to Floyd. Can he put up Garcia like numbers or better over the course of a full season? I have my doubts about the guy. UT RIGHT Now he has a a good shot to be the fifth starter, whether that's by default or if he lasts there the whole season are other issues.

 

 

Bob

[witesoxfan]

So what do you project for Floyd in 2007? Do you expect Gio Gonzalez to have any impact on the big league team?

 

KW preached about how if he traded one of his starting pitchers it would be to help the team win now as well as in the future. Maybe Gonzalez will one day be good--heck I've heard someone say he reminds them of Ron Guidry. I don't see that, especially in 2007. So it comes down to Floyd. Can he put up Garcia like numbers or better over the course of a full season? I have my doubts about the guy. UT RIGHT Now he has a a good shot to be the fifth starter, whether that's by default or if he lasts there the whole season are other issues.

Bob

 

I highly doubt Floyd puts up anywhere near Garcia's numbers. I do, however, believe one of the starting pitchers can fill his numbers, and Floyd can hopefully put up numbers around what Buehrle put up last year. Say the rotation fills out something like this...

 

Contreras - 3.75 ERA, 17 W

Buehrle - 3.90 ERA, 16 W

Garland - 4.25 ERA, 14 W

Vazquez - 4.45 ERA, 13 W

Floyd - 5.50 ERA, 10 W

 

I assume you'd agree that the rotation above would be better than the rotation from last year. In this instance, Contreras is improving upon himself, Buehrle upon Garland, Garland upon Garcia, Vazquez upon him, and Floyd is having a worse year than Buehrle. If 4 pitchers improve, and the bullpen is better this year as well, the Sox should have no problem pitching wise. At that point, it will be about the offense being able to consistently score all year long, as opposed to just in the first half.

 

 

Regarding Gonzalez, he probably won't be ready to pitch in the Sox rotation until next year at the earliest, and I figure it's either going to be 2009 or he'll be traded. Just a hunch on my part, with just numbers and gut feeling backing it up.

 

That should help a little bit anyways, atleast according to how I feel. Some may disagree, that's their right.

[DBAHO]

Uribe had about the 11th best SLG% out of all MLB shortstops, and he had the 12th most XBH's. Using both OBP, SLG, and defense, I figure Uribe is probably about the 15th best SS in the league - meaning exactly in the middle - with the potential there to be a top 10 SS in the league next year. It's almost guaranteed that he can't put up a worse year, even with his offseason troubles. I'd probably put him at putting a .725-.750 OPS next year with the capabilities to go up to .800. I find that quite realistic, and so long as the glove shows up too, those will be great numbers.

Personally I think Juan Uribe can consider himself very fortunate that he can play for the White Sox and hit half of his games at the Cell.

 

Because the only good positive offensive stat he can argubly put up is SLG%. And if he was playing for say a team in a pitcher's park, imagine how much uglier those offensive stats would be.

 

Do I think he's going to improve next season? I don't know, many people think he will, and if he comes in camp with the right playing weight and fit, he could very well do so.

 

But he's done nothing but get worse since his 1st season here, and there doesn't seem to be a plan for him to get better, besides that leg kick which for some reason now he doesn't use.

 

Considering where he hits in the lineup, I would rather have a guy who could put up a better on base percentage rather than a guy with an OBP below .275 who hit around 20 HR's.

 

So if it wasn't for his defense, he wouldn't have a starting job in my view, and I'm sure most people would be in agreeance on that.

 

So it's imperative in 2007 that he and Anderson can at least hold their heads above water and contribute. Whether that's going to happen with Uribe, I don't know. Frankly I'm more confident in Anderson improving more than Uribe in 2007 offensively.

[ptatc]

Incorrect, perhaps your confusion is born from thinking the All-Star game evenly divides the halves of a season. Through the first 80 games of the season, Mark Buehrle had an ERA of 3.22.

 

It wasn't until the 81st game of the season against the Cubs that Buehrle's season began to fall apart. Which yes, is the last day of the first half, but would be obtuse to ignore his 3.22 ERA entering the last game of the first half.

 

So I'll say it again: Mark Buehrle had a spectacular first half of 2006.

 

Why do so many people look at a season and insists on arbitrarily dividing it up? The last time I checked it is the team that has the most wins for the SEASON that get to go to the playoffs. Who cares if the first half or 3rd 8th or 12/16th of the season was good bad or spectuacular. You take the season as a whole and the team with the most wins moves on.

 

I'm not saying it's good or bad but I think too many people get caught up in the details.

 

it's a simple game you hit the ball you throw the you catch the ball. You lally gag to first you lolly gag to the outfield, what does that make you LOLLYGAGGERS. I love that movie. I watch it every year before spring training.

 

Forgive the ramblings of a man stuck grading to many exams. I've got to give fewer exams during a trimester.

Edited February 16, 2007 by ptatc

[shoota]

Why do so many people look at a season and insists on arbitrarily dividing it up? The last time I checked it is the team that has the most wins for the SEASON that get to go to the playoffs. Who cares if the first half or 3rd 8th or 12/16th of the season was good bad or spectuacular. You take the season as a whole and the team with the most wins moves on.

 

In my case, to disprove this Phil Rogers statement: "Yes, neither [buehrle or Garcia] was nearly as sharp in 2006 as in '05..."

 

I think that statement is false and tried to prove Buehrle was as sharp in 2006 as he was in 2005 over half the season.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I guess my previous post to Vance Law was redundant since witesoxfan and santo=dorf had already stated my point. I didn't read the entire thread before I responded.

[witesoxfan]

Personally I think Juan Uribe can consider himself very fortunate that he can play for the White Sox and hit half of his games at the Cell.

 

Because the only good positive offensive stat he can argubly put up is SLG%. And if he was playing for say a team in a pitcher's park, imagine how much uglier those offensive stats would be.

 

Do I think he's going to improve next season? I don't know, many people think he will, and if he comes in camp with the right playing weight and fit, he could very well do so.

 

But he's done nothing but get worse since his 1st season here, and there doesn't seem to be a plan for him to get better, besides that leg kick which for some reason now he doesn't use.

 

I agree completely that it's fortunate USCF is a hitter's park. However, I completely doubt you'd see Uribe in a Sox uniform if it wasn't; instead, you'd have seen him traded this offseason and Alex Gonzalez would have been brought in, and that I have no doubt about, because even though Gonzalez himself isn't a good hitter, it's likely that he would up an OBP higher than Uribe would and there would be little drop off defensively.

 

You also have to figure that even with his tornado, hit or miss swing, he would have hit higher than .235 in a big park. He'd have been a horrible fit in say Dodgers Stadium, but if you put him in Pac Bell or Petco, he probably would have hit .250-.260 (which is like 6-12 more hits throughout the year, and I'm sure that would have happened) last year with a SLG% around .375-.400.

 

Considering where he hits in the lineup, I would rather have a guy who could put up a better on base percentage rather than a guy with an OBP below .275 who hit around 20 HR's.

 

Hitting 8th, I don't mind it so much. He has Pierzynski and Crede hitting in front of him and, while they don't put up great OBP's, they get on base at a good enough clip that he'll his power is an asset, as viewed by his 70 RBIs last year. If the Sox had guys who flat out didn't get on base in front of him, that'd be a problem.

 

It'd also be great if Anderson improves enough this year with the bat that he's able to put up a .320-.340 OBP, and that's not to put the entire onus on Anderson, but he'll almost undoubtedly be the 9th hitter, and I view that position as more of a need to get on base than 8.

 

So if it wasn't for his defense, he wouldn't have a starting job in my view, and I'm sure most people would be in agreeance on that.

 

It's kind of stating the obvious, but yes I agree. It is almost like saying Thome wouldn't be with the Sox if he couldn't hit for power, but I understand what you're saying.

 

So it's imperative in 2007 that he and Anderson can at least hold their heads above water and contribute. Whether that's going to happen with Uribe, I don't know. Frankly I'm more confident in Anderson improving more than Uribe in 2007 offensively.

 

I actually agree with this too - atleast as far as drastically improving goes. I'm not sure how much worse Uribe can hit (and I hope it's not much worse if he can...eesh, that'd be bad), but I think it's almost impossible for Anderson to hit worse.

 

The key for Uribe is not to swing as everything, because quite frankly, 13 walks is horrendous. Thome walks like 20 times a month, which says it all for me. Anderson just needs to worry about making contact on a more regular basis, and if he can, he'll be great (relatively speaking) this year.

[DABearSoX]

same thing they said with the moves before the '05 season.....we need our top 4 to eat innings and not collapse down the homestretch like last year, hopefully with the long offseason they will be ready....

[Vance Law]

Incorrect, perhaps your confusion is born from thinking the All-Star game evenly divides the halves of a season. Through the first 80 games of the season, Mark Buehrle had an ERA of 3.22.

 

It wasn't until the 81st game of the season against the Cubs that Buehrle's season began to fall apart. Which yes, is the last day of the first half, but would be obtuse to ignore his 3.22 ERA entering the last game of the first half.

 

So I'll say it again: Mark Buehrle had a spectacular first half of 2006.

 

Yes, I agree with you on that.

I was following the convention of splitting the season into pre and post all-star game, though I do realize more games are played before the break. I bet you might agree with me that MB was not spectacular overall before the break. And hopefully everyone can agree that Phil Rodgers is a douche.

[shoota]

Yes, I agree with you on that.

I was following the convention of splitting the season into pre and post all-star game, though I do realize more games are played before the break. I bet you might agree with me that MB was not spectacular overall before the break. And hopefully everyone can agree that Phil Rodgers is a douche.

 

I don't understand.

[Kalapse]

I don't understand.

If include that final start before the break against the Cubs Buehrle's pre allstar break numbers are 4.02 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 54:28 K:BB and a 9-6 record. Which are not spectacular numbers.

[shoota]

If include that final start before the break against the Cubs Buehrle's pre allstar break numbers are 4.02 ERA, 1.32 WHIP, 54:28 K:BB and a 9-6 record. Which are not spectacular numbers.

 

We've already distinguished the All-Star break is not an equal division between halves of a season. Since the language I used was "first half" and not "pre-All-Star break," those numbers are moot to the discussion.

 

My post stating "I don't understand," was to motivate Vance to elaborate on the two bolded sentences I found contradictory.

[witesoxfan]

We've already distinguished the All-Star break is not an equal division between halves of a season. Since the language I used was "first half" and not "pre-All-Star break," those numbers are moot to the discussion.

 

My post stating "I don't understand," was to motivate Vance to elaborate on the two bolded sentences I found contradictory.

 

Typically, first half and pre-ASB are considered one and the same, even when considering that the halves are not divided equally. And even when using the first 81 games, Mark Buehrle's first half - as you pointed out - was not spectacular.

[Kalapse]

We've already distinguished the All-Star break is not an equal division between halves of a season. Since the language I used was "first half" and not "pre-All-Star break," those numbers are moot to the discussion.

 

My post stating "I don't understand," was to motivate Vance to elaborate on the two bolded sentences I found contradictory.

Even when you broke the season in half 81/81 it didn't make sense since that Cubs start came on game 81 so you can't disregard it. Regardless, this whole thing is silly since breaking the season up into arbitrary segments makes absolutely no sense to begin with (oh I agree with you ptatc.) and since Mark Buehrle put up a 93 ERA+ last season and a 143 in '05 he was most definitely not as sharp last year as he was during the championship year regardless of how successful his first 18 starts of the season were.

[shoota]

Typically, first half and pre-ASB are considered one and the same, even when considering that the halves are not divided equally. And even when using the first 81 games, Mark Buehrle's first half - as you pointed out - was not spectacular.

 

 

I'm aware the part of the season occurring before the All-Star break is commonly referred to as the first half. I'm also aware half of 162 games is 81.

[shoota]

Even when you broke the season in half 81/81 it didn't make sense since that Cubs start came on game 81 so you can't disregard it. Regardless, this whole thing is silly since breaking the season up into arbitrary segments makes absolutely no sense to begin with (oh I agree with you ptatc.) and since Mark Buehrle put up a 93 ERA+ last season and a 143 in '05 he was most definitely not as sharp last year as he was during the championship year regardless of how successful his first 18 starts of the season were.

 

As I explained, my motivation for dividing the season in halves was as an attempt to disprove Phil Rogers's statement that Buehrle wasn't nearly as sharp in 2006 as in 2005. Buehrle's performance through the first 80 games (3.22 ERA) proved that he did perform for a sizable portion of the season at the high level he did over the entire 2005 season (3.12 year-end ERA).

 

The same sharpness was present in both seasons, it just continued for a longer period of time in 2005. Rogers's comment suggested Buehrle was consistently bad throughout the entire season, which is not true.

Edited February 16, 2007 by shoota

[witesoxfan]

I'm aware the part of the season occurring before the All-Star break is commonly referred to as the first half. I'm also aware half of 162 games is 81.

 

K

 

then why...

 

As I explained, my motivation for dividing the season in halves was as an attempt to disprove Phil Rogers's statement that Buehrle wasn't nearly as sharp in 2006 as in 2005. Buehrle's performance through the first 80 games (3.22 ERA) proved that he did perform for a sizable portion of the season at the high level he did over the entire 2005 season (3.12 year-end ERA).

 

The same sharpness was present in both seasons, it just continued for a longer period of time in 2005. Rogers's comment suggested Buehrle was consistently bad throughout the entire season, which is not true.

 

are you even debating this FACT...

 

Yes, neither (Buehrle and Garcia) was nearly as sharp in 2006 as in '05

 

by using a half of a season (where he was good) to justify his whole season (which was worse than mediocre)?

 

In the same exact context, I could not only argue, but I could prove with numbers that Mark Buehrle was, beyond a doubt, in fact the WORST pitcher in all of baseball by using MORE than half the season (82 games).

 

He's not saying neither weren't sharp at some point during 2006. Buehrle was outstanding through 80 games, and Garcia had one of the best Septembers I can remember from a Sox pitcher since I've been true Sox fan (C.2000). That doesn't change the fact that Garcia had a mediocre 2006 season, and Buehrle was bad. End of story, Phil Rogers is right.

[chisox72]

So it comes down to Floyd. Can he put up Garcia like numbers or better over the course of a full season? I have my doubts about the guy.

 

 

This is what I don't get about people that still gripe about these trades. It was NEVER the question mark fifth starters spot to REPLACE or PUT UP numbers like Garcia. That was NEVER what the team was looking for. Javy MUST be better. Mark MUST be better. Jose MUST be better. Thats what the team is looking at.

 

When you say things like put up Garcia numbers, as though Floyd is going to suck for sure right off the bat, does that mean he can also take games off and pitch like s*** against the Royals and D-Rays down the stretch when a win is needed? Just like the immortal Freddy Garcia did? Just because he "can't get up for anything but big games"?

 

Please. As I said in an earlier post. This rotation MUST have the top 4 be as effective as they can be if they want to win. THAT is what won it in '05, the top 4. There is no reason in the world that Javy, with his s*** together cannot put together a 17 win season. Period.

[shoota]

In the same exact context, I could not only argue, but I could prove with numbers that Mark Buehrle was, beyond a doubt, in fact the WORST pitcher in all of baseball by using MORE than half the season (82 games).

 

Remember, I'm not defending Buehrle's miserable second half, but contesting Rogers's statement stating Buehrle wasn't as sharp in 2006 as he was in 2005. Rogers's statement, as written, reads as if Buehrle was less effective in 2006 over the course of the entire season. Rogers makes no acknowledgment of Buehrle's tale of two halves. A more accurate sentence would have noted how Buehrle continued his sharp 2005 pitching into the first half of the 2006, before crumbling with the worst half season of his career.

Edited February 16, 2007 by shoota

[witesoxfan]

Remember, I'm not defending Buehrle's miserable second half, but contesting Rogers's statement stating Buehrle wasn't as sharp in 2006 as he was in 2005. Rogers's statement, as written, reads as if Buehrle was less effective in 2006 over the course of the entire season. Rogers makes no acknowledgment of Buehrle's tale of two halves. A more accurate sentence would have noted how Buehrle continued his sharp 2005 pitching into the first half of the 2006, before crumbling with the worst half season of his career.

 

k

[gosox41]

I highly doubt Floyd puts up anywhere near Garcia's numbers. I do, however, believe one of the starting pitchers can fill his numbers, and Floyd can hopefully put up numbers around what Buehrle put up last year. Say the rotation fills out something like this...

 

Contreras - 3.75 ERA, 17 W

Buehrle - 3.90 ERA, 16 W

Garland - 4.25 ERA, 14 W

Vazquez - 4.45 ERA, 13 W

Floyd - 5.50 ERA, 10 W

 

I assume you'd agree that the rotation above would be better than the rotation from last year. In this instance, Contreras is improving upon himself, Buehrle upon Garland, Garland upon Garcia, Vazquez upon him, and Floyd is having a worse year than Buehrle. If 4 pitchers improve, and the bullpen is better this year as well, the Sox should have no problem pitching wise. At that point, it will be about the offense being able to consistently score all year long, as opposed to just in the first half.

Regarding Gonzalez, he probably won't be ready to pitch in the Sox rotation until next year at the earliest, and I figure it's either going to be 2009 or he'll be traded. Just a hunch on my part, with just numbers and gut feeling backing it up.

 

That should help a little bit anyways, atleast according to how I feel. Some may disagree, that's their right.

 

 

I hope the other 4 guys step it up, the Vazquez is the least likely of the 4 to do that.

 

We both pretty much don't expect much from Floyd. But this is what bothers me about the trade to begin with. It's like going back and forth in circles. KW trades a proven starting pitcher for one player with little expectations and one with a lot of hope (Gonzalez). Shuoldn't Garcia have more value then that in the trade market? This goes back to filling other non-pitching holes. I see how much the Astros paid for Jennings and it seems like the rec'd next to nothing. I realize Jennings has another year on his contract, but I don't think Jennings is so great of a pitcher to begin with.

 

And that leads me back in a circle to the trade of Garcia. If we operate under the hope/assumption that the 4 other starters step it up, then wouldn't the Sox be that much better even if Garcia pitched exactly as he did in 2006 (and for the record, being a walk year I think he'll have a monster year)?

 

One of the reasons I keep going back and forth with this trade is that so far it contradicts 2 KW comment:

1. It doesn't make the White Sox a better team in 2007

2. This trade was not done to cut salary.

 

 

 

Bob

 

This is what I don't get about people that still gripe about these trades. It was NEVER the question mark fifth starters spot to REPLACE or PUT UP numbers like Garcia. That was NEVER what the team was looking for. Javy MUST be better. Mark MUST be better. Jose MUST be better. Thats what the team is looking at.

 

When you say things like put up Garcia numbers, as though Floyd is going to suck for sure right off the bat, does that mean he can also take games off and pitch like s*** against the Royals and D-Rays down the stretch when a win is needed? Just like the immortal Freddy Garcia did? Just because he "can't get up for anything but big games"?

 

Please. As I said in an earlier post. This rotation MUST have the top 4 be as effective as they can be if they want to win. THAT is what won it in '05, the top 4. There is no reason in the world that Javy, with his s*** together cannot put together a 17 win season. Period.

 

So the Sox traded Garcia with the intent of making the 2007 team better but we've come to the conclusion that it's not the 5th starters job to put up Garcia like numbers. So we agree Floyd will be worse. Just looking at that situation alone, does that make the Sox a better or worse team?

 

Now I agree the other 4 guys need to pitch like they're capable of. Can you prove how the trade of Garcia will make the other 4 starters better. Because we already agreed above taht Floyd won't be as good as Garcia over the course of the season.

 

Last, I agree that Garcia sometimes lacked intensity. But how's this for motivation? It's Garcia's walk year and this may be the last big contract the signs. Are you saying you expect Garcia worse then last year because there are the same or less big games for Freddy to pitch in with the Phillies?

 

 

Bob