Balta1701 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Apr 29, 2007 -> 05:28 PM) "That year out of the bullpen ruined him!" Honestly? I know it's wrong to blame that, but it certainly appears to have not been a good thing for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregory Pratt Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 There are plenty of pitchers who that never hurt. Some who were. I'm of the school of thought that those who'll make it will make it whether they spend time in the pen or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Personally, I'm a lot more in-between. I think there are some guys who will just be good no matter what happens, but then there are a lot of other guys who's performance is decided in no small party by who teaches them and how they're handled early in their career (in terms of both performance and injuries). I just think about all of the people who we see with a ton of talent but who are just unable to put it all together and compare them to the guys with equal or even lesser talent who do less with it. There's just so many variables...and a good chunk of them have to be related to the situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Damn, I feel bad for Brandon... Hopefully he gets his stuff straightened out. The kid always went out of his way for people on Soxtalk, and I wish him nothing but the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) Damn, I feel bad for Brandon... Hopefully he gets his stuff straightened out. The kid always went out of his way for people on Soxtalk, and I wish him nothing but the best. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It has been so easy to pull for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 03:48 PM) Damn, I feel bad for Brandon... Hopefully he gets his stuff straightened out. The kid always went out of his way for people on Soxtalk, and I wish him nothing but the best. ^^^^ It amazes me as some folks continually nitpick and destroy those that they know nothing about around here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aboz56 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I'll root for him, but he was overrated by many on this board. We got the better end of the deal IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 The weirdest thing about B-Mac is everyone thought he would give up a ton of HR's, especially pitching in Texas, yet he has only allowed 3 (all in one game). His WHIP is 2.10 and he has 10 BBs and only 12 Ks. No one could've expected this. Yes he was overrated by many, but he is not pitching up to his ability at this time. If he was doing this on the Sox it would be ugly right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 he just needs a start against the Sox. Seems to help other struggling pitchers like Weaver and Durbin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 He'd probably no-hit us right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted May 5, 2007 Author Share Posted May 5, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Apr 30, 2007 -> 01:00 PM) He'd probably no-hit us right now. Pitching much better tonight so far. Unscored upon over 2.3 IP, only one hit given up. Ooops, just gave up a solo homer to Sal Fasano. Walked the bases loaded in the fourth but got out of it. Up 5-1 going into the fifth inning with the chance to get his 2nd win. Edited May 5, 2007 by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Tizzle Posted May 5, 2007 Share Posted May 5, 2007 Final line -- 6IP, 2H, 1ER, 4BB, 1SO, 1HR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 5, 2007 Share Posted May 5, 2007 QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ May 4, 2007 -> 08:45 PM) Final line -- 6IP, 2H, 1ER, 4BB, 1SO, 1HR Quick to update that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ May 5, 2007 -> 02:53 PM) Quick to update that one... LOL. I was thinking the exact same thing. Tizzle takes his sweet ol' time updating B-Mac's terrible outings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 (edited) There was an interesting comment made about B-Mac today by the Yankees radio commentators. While B-Mac was pitching, they brought up the trade and said that normally you have to wait a few years before assessing the trade, but it looked like the Sox got the better end of the deal right now. The interesting part - They also discussed how they felt that the White Sox might have actually pumped up B-Mac's value by saying he was untradeable and that he was going to be in the rotation in 2007, etc, etc. So if you look back, he has all those great starts late in 2005, but then is relegated to the bullpen in 2006? If the Sox were so high on him, why bring in Vazquez? They mentioned how the Dodgers used to do this all the time. They would actually only allow pitchers to face certain hitters to make them seem better than they actually were. So what do you think? Did the Sox artificially inflate the value of BMac up until the trade? I know you are not going to do anything to lower the value of any of your players, but some of the Sox actions seem to point towards this scenario. Edited May 10, 2007 by RME JICO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 QUOTE(RME JICO @ May 10, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) There was an interesting comment made about B-Mac today by the Yankees radio commentators. While B-Mac was pitching, they brought up the trade and said that normally you have to wait a few years before assessing the trade, but it looked like the Sox got the better end of the deal right now. The interesting part - They also discussed how they felt that the White Sox might have actually pumped up B-Mac's value by saying he was untradeable and that he was going to be in the rotation in 2007, etc, etc. So if you look back, he has all those great starts late in 2005, but then is relegated to the bullpen in 2006? If the Sox were so high on him, why bring in Vazquez? They mentioned how the Dodgers used to do this all the time. They would actually only allow pitchers to face certain hitters to make them seem better than they actually were. So what do you think? Did the Sox artificially inflate the value of BMac up until the trade? I know you are not going to do anything to lower the value of any of your players, but some of the Sox actions seem to point towards this scenario. If that was their plan, fine by me. I'm more than satisfied with what we got back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 (edited) QUOTE(Jordan4life_2007 @ May 10, 2007 -> 05:31 PM) If that was their plan, fine by me. I'm more than satisfied with what we got back. I don't think anyone at this point would say that they aren't. This coming from probably the biggest McCarthy fan on this site. It is going to take years to fully review this trade, but at the moment, this is an absolute steal. Edited May 10, 2007 by Rowand44 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RME JICO Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 QUOTE(Jordan4life_2007 @ May 10, 2007 -> 05:31 PM) If that was their plan, fine by me. I'm more than satisfied with what we got back. Yeah, me too. I just thought it was interesting if you look back at how the Sox handled him from late 2005 on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 QUOTE(RME JICO @ May 10, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) There was an interesting comment made about B-Mac today by the Yankees radio commentators. While B-Mac was pitching, they brought up the trade and said that normally you have to wait a few years before assessing the trade, but it looked like the Sox got the better end of the deal right now. The interesting part - They also discussed how they felt that the White Sox might have actually pumped up B-Mac's value by saying he was untradeable and that he was going to be in the rotation in 2007, etc, etc. So if you look back, he has all those great starts late in 2005, but then is relegated to the bullpen in 2006? If the Sox were so high on him, why bring in Vazquez? They mentioned how the Dodgers used to do this all the time. They would actually only allow pitchers to face certain hitters to make them seem better than they actually were. So what do you think? Did the Sox artificially inflate the value of BMac up until the trade? I know you are not going to do anything to lower the value of any of your players, but some of the Sox actions seem to point towards this scenario. I don't buy it. I was at Soxfest prior to the 2005 season, before McCarthy had the dominant spring training and before he ever threw one pitch in the major leagues. Rick Hahn said back then about a guy probably half the room had never even heard of that he would "bring back a king's ransom" in a trade. Its funny the Yankee announcers are popping off but their team with a payroll doubling everyone elses gets to BMac for 1 run. The guy had a couple of tough starts, but he's going to be a good pitcher. He showed many flashes of that with the White Sox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 QUOTE(RME JICO @ May 10, 2007 -> 03:27 PM) So what do you think? Did the Sox artificially inflate the value of BMac up until the trade? I know you are not going to do anything to lower the value of any of your players, but some of the Sox actions seem to point towards this scenario. I can't see how throwing him out there against Texas and Boston back in late 05, and then a few weeks later lining him up against Santana in the middle of a pennant chase was a scheme to make him look better than he was. Texas and Boston were almost the 2 top offenses in the league at that point, and he held them both scoreless for 15 innings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 BMAC will be a good pitcher still, but we made the trade because obviously it was in our favor. It should have paid off next year, but xmas came a little early with Danks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitewashed in '05 Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 I kind of doubt that. KW was trying to improve the team as much as possible after 05 and having Javy as our 5th starter looked damn good. I wanted Bmac to get the 5th spot, but you can't blame KW for trying to ease him in and putting Javy out there. Of course Javy disappointed as did Bmac. Bmac will be a good pitcher especially if he can add a few MPH to that straight fastball. He's beginning to settle down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 I'm glad to see him doing well. Both teams should be happy with the trade and that's the ideal situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitesoxfan101 Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 104 pitches to get through 5 and a third and get the ERA all the way down to 6.90. I'm impressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 vs. TB: 6 IP, 3 ER, 6 H, 3 BB, 7 Ks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.webp.29cc6c9fee0f01ceeb4f722593e5e3ba.webp)
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.