Tigers Set to Sign Porcello

[CWSGuy406]

I doubt we'll outbid anyone anywhere...

 

Well, they wouldn't have to bid a whole lot of teams if they tried to do something clever like go and start and acadamy in Canada, Australia, (someplace other than Central or South America).

 

I'm not saying it's something the Sox will do, BTW -- rather it's something I'd like to see them do.

[michelangelosmonkey]

Care to go over the Sox draft record of first rounders for the last 15 years?

 

That's just an awful line of logic, how many would the Sox have without Konerko? We got him for less than value too, guess we got lucky. Would we have won in 2005 without Garland? We got him for Matt Karchner, guess we got lucky. Oh, and some guy we took in the 38th round turned into our team ace. Guess our drafting is just that brilliant. You can't really have it both ways. There's a little luck involved with everything, but it's pretty clear that they have above average talent evaluators. And by the way, he didn't have that devastating changeup when they signed him, he picked it up when he was in their system.

 

Oh, and Johan Santana wasn't even a full-time starter in 2003 and 2004 when they won division titles. He threw 108 1/3 innings in 2003 when they beat us by 4 games and 158 1/3 in 2004 when they beat us by 9 games. And if you want to minimize the Twins' division titles because "the division was weak", what does that say about the Sox over the same stretch?

Mine is an awful line of logic? Listen...in this thread someone put forward the premise that the Twins have this brilliant system of talent evaluators and therefore they will finish better than the Sox in the next three years. I'm saying...where's the proof? Seems like Kenny WIlliams has put together a world series champion and the Twins, with the best pitcher in baseball, haven't been particularly close.

 

And it is not ME that is inconsistent on the luck/skill determination. I have not elevated the Twins nor the White Sox into a pantheon of brilliant organizations. I think we are wrong to deify the Twins while denegrating the Sox...but I would make the same argument if we were burying the Twins and praising the Sox. I happen to think the White Sox were extraordinarily lucky to have Buehrle develop into a very good pitcher. I think the Twins were even luckier having Santana become the best pitcher in baseball. To deny luck...to say the Twins have a special prediliction for determining future allstar pitchers from 20 year old pitchers beyond what others could see...where are their other Santana's? If the Sox could see something in 20 year old soft throwing lefties...where are their other Buehrle's?

 

It's not all luck...you target a first basemen...and you use a high draft pick or you trade a key part to get a young kid and with a bit of hard work and good evaluation and player development...you get Konerko. But if you are lucky you get Albert Pujols.

 

 

[michelangelosmonkey]

You do realize that pro and amateur scouting are two separate entities, right? The Twins have demonstrated that they have perhaps the best pro scouting in the game. You make fun of Carlos silva, but he's given them over 700 innings of above average starting pitching for less than the cost of 1 year of Eric Milton, the player he was traded for. That's brilliant scouting.

 

I don't think Alexi Casilla will amount to anything special, but acquiring a slick fielding 2B on the cheap for a LOOGY with a WHIP over 1.5 is another great move.

 

Add in the Santana, Liriano, and Nathan thefts, and you've got yourself a more than solid core simply by identifying and trading for other franchises undervalued spare parts... (KW tried to do the same thing in acquiring Richar, but using Cunningham instead of a high salaried player on the ML roster was a mistake)

 

You don't trade with Terry Ryan and come out on top often. He probably knows your minor leagues/cheap players better than you do...

Put down the hyperbole gun. Carlos Silva trade was BRILLIANT scouting? Carlos Silva has been 43-43 on a team with a better than .500 record. His ERA has been 4.30 on a team with a team ERA of under 4.00. He's a guy. I don't want to undervalue just-a-guy...I remember the White Sox dreaming of getting a fifth starter in 2001. But to say the Twins refused to pay Eric Milton a fortune (sane decision) and traded him for J-a-g is brilliant scouting?

 

Again...how can we deify Terry Ryan and condemn Kenny Williams? Didn't KW get Freddie Garcia for a bunch of overvalued prospects? Didn't he find Contreas and El Duque in the Yankee's dumpster? Didn't he get Iguchi for next to nothing from Japan?

Jermaine Dye if I remember properly was a blue light special at Kmart? I will HAPPILY say that the Twins are a worthy opponent in accumulating talent. But to look into the future and say the Sox are doomed and the Twins are great because of their superiority in evaluation of major and minor talent? There is no evidence in the past to confirm that and some evidence (world series ring) to prove Kenny is smarter than Terry.

[ZoomSlowik]

Mine is an awful line of logic? Listen...in this thread someone put forward the premise that the Twins have this brilliant system of talent evaluators and therefore they will finish better than the Sox in the next three years. I'm saying...where's the proof? Seems like Kenny WIlliams has put together a world series champion and the Twins, with the best pitcher in baseball, haven't been particularly close.

 

And it is not ME that is inconsistent on the luck/skill determination. I have not elevated the Twins nor the White Sox into a pantheon of brilliant organizations. I think we are wrong to deify the Twins while denegrating the Sox...but I would make the same argument if we were burying the Twins and praising the Sox. I happen to think the White Sox were extraordinarily lucky to have Buehrle develop into a very good pitcher. I think the Twins were even luckier having Santana become the best pitcher in baseball. To deny luck...to say the Twins have a special prediliction for determining future allstar pitchers from 20 year old pitchers beyond what others could see...where are their other Santana's? If the Sox could see something in 20 year old soft throwing lefties...where are their other Buehrle's?

 

It's not all luck...you target a first basemen...and you use a high draft pick or you trade a key part to get a young kid and with a bit of hard work and good evaluation and player development...you get Konerko. But if you are lucky you get Albert Pujols.

 

Let's see, the Sox had one very good year where they managed to get a title and another division crown 7 years ago, the Twins had 4 division titles in recent memory. I don't really see the great disparity in difference of success there, other than consistency on their side. The 7 games in the standings this year would also seem to tilt in their favor. Plus several key guys on the Sox are starting to show signs of age, which isn't really an issue for the Twins (outside of possibly Hunter if he stays).

 

Again, consistency is a major factor in why I would say the Twins have been better at consistently producing talent than the Sox. How many major league contributors has their system produced since 2000? The answer is not a whole lot.

 

In case you didn't notice, before he got hurt Liriano was already starting to produce like another Santana. Heck, he had a lower ERA at the time. He was quite simply one of the most dominant starters in the game and it was still only the first time he really had a full time starting spot. Given time, Garza could conceivably be another. He's already shown some flashes and he's still very young. Much as I like Gio and DLS, it's going to be A WHILE before the Sox could say the same thing.

 

Um, didn't I say virtually the EXACT SAME THING in my last post? Sure, there was some luck in their timing and you can't always get all your targets, but in that case they did and they've panned out. I'd really like to see more of that from the Sox in the near future, though I'm not sure how many of their guys can bring back significant talent.

 

Besides, I don't really see how you're considering "luck" on both sides. You're willing to dismiss the Twins' 4 division titles and consistent ability to finish ahead of us in recent history as luck, but yet you're touting the ONE time the Sox have a really good team in recent memory as an example of why this is a successful organization that performs as well/better than the Twins. I really don't get that.

Edited August 23, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[ZoomSlowik]

Put down the hyperbole gun. Carlos Silva trade was BRILLIANT scouting? Carlos Silva has been 43-43 on a team with a better than .500 record. His ERA has been 4.30 on a team with a team ERA of under 4.00. He's a guy. I don't want to undervalue just-a-guy...I remember the White Sox dreaming of getting a fifth starter in 2001. But to say the Twins refused to pay Eric Milton a fortune (sane decision) and traded him for J-a-g is brilliant scouting?

 

Again...how can we deify Terry Ryan and condemn Kenny Williams? Didn't KW get Freddie Garcia for a bunch of overvalued prospects? Didn't he find Contreas and El Duque in the Yankee's dumpster? Didn't he get Iguchi for next to nothing from Japan?

Jermaine Dye if I remember properly was a blue light special at Kmart? I will HAPPILY say that the Twins are a worthy opponent in accumulating talent. But to look into the future and say the Sox are doomed and the Twins are great because of their superiority in evaluation of major and minor talent? There is no evidence in the past to confirm that and some evidence (world series ring) to prove Kenny is smarter than Terry.

 

Since when is 4 division titles no evidence? Did I miss something here? 4>2, right? I love that we won a ring, but we're talking about putting up a better record than the Twins for THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS in this particular discussion, with a team that clearly needs a shot in the arm and some younger talent. They've finished with a better record than us 5 of the last 6 years and it looks like they're going to make it 6 out of 7 barring a reasonably big change in the standings. They've also done it with a fairly low payroll to this point, which may change with a new stadium in the near future. I'd say that's some reasonably strong evidence, or at least more worthwhile than what happened in that one year that was the exception. If you go back I said it was possible, but the Sox have some work to do.

 

I don't dislike Kenny, and he's done some solid things, but the team has some problems. We're 29th in runs scored and 28th in ERA, His payroll is already pretty bloated, he has some holes that we can all see that need to be filled, and he doesn't have a whole lot of tradeable assets, several of which would just create another hole. Sure, this has been a pretty bad year for injuries/underacheiving, but that doesn't cover everything.

Edited August 23, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[michelangelosmonkey]

Since when is 4 division titles no evidence? Did I miss something here? 4>2, right? I love that we won a ring, but we're talking about putting up a better record than the Twins for THREE CONSECUTIVE YEARS in this particular discussion, with a team that clearly needs a shot in the arm and some younger talent. They've finished with a better record than us 5 of the last 6 years and it looks like they're going to make it 6 out of 7 barring a reasonably big change in the standings. They've also done it with a fairly low payroll to this point, which may change with a new stadium in the near future. I'd say that's some reasonably strong evidence, or at least more worthwhile than what happened in that one year that was the exception. If you go back I said it was possible, but the Sox have some work to do.

 

I don't dislike Kenny, and he's done some solid things, but the team has some problems. We're 29th in runs scored and 28th in ERA, His payroll is already pretty bloated, he has some holes that we can all see that need to be filled, and he doesn't have a whole lot of tradeable assets, several of which would just create another hole. Sure, this has been a pretty bad year for injuries/underacheiving, but that doesn't cover everything.

 

First of all perhaps we have a definitional problem. The goal of baseball is to win the WS. It's not to win more games than the TWins or win more games than the Cubs. It's to win more games than EVERYONE. So in my world the score is Sox 1 Twins 0 (I'm counting last 15 years...current administrations). There IS a value in being a fan of a team that wins consistently. But my point is that Santana is not an example of the Twins genius but a sole data point that has changed their curve. In four years...including three division titles Santana was 12-3, 20-6, 16-7 and 19-6. Santana hasn't been good, he's been amazing. In 1990 the GB Packers were a moribund franchise. They'd been a losing team for twenty years. That season they went 6-10. The next year they were 4-12. They started the next season 0-2 and were losing to Cincinnati, an equally awful team at the time, by two touchdowns. Then the Packer quaterback got hurt and this 2nd round draft pick (meaning every other team in the NFL had passed him up at least once), Brett Favre stepped in...and the Packers won that game on a last second pass and went 9-4 the rest of that first season...and then over the next dozen years the Packers went to the playoffs ten times and the Superbowl twice. Is this evidence that the Packers have been a brilliant organization over the last dozen years? Or that certain players are super stars and elevate their teams.

 

God bless the Twins for finding Santana. But oustide of Santana those were very average teams. if you take him off that team in the last six years they finish behind the Sox ever year. And I think a true ACE goes way beyond the value of his won-loss record. Because when you have that 4 game losing streak the team KNOWS they are going to win when Santana pitches. Takes a lot of stress off the other guys. Look at the dominant pitchers in our lifetimes...Roger Clemens went to the playoffs 11 times. Maddux 12 times. Randy Johnson 7 times. Steve Carlton 8 times. Doc Gooden 5 times. Pedro Martinez 4 times....for a Boston franchise that never went.

 

I like the Twins. I think what they've done with a low payroll is something to study...but with Santana off the team in 14 months? I'm not ready to bet on their future over the Sox. At least the Sox can fall back on a payroll double the Twins. Which I recognize is unfair but life is unfair

[michelangelosmonkey]

Let's see, the Sox had one very good year where they managed to get a title and another division crown 7 years ago, the Twins had 4 division titles in recent memory. I don't really see the great disparity in difference of success there, other than consistency on their side. The 7 games in the standings this year would also seem to tilt in their favor. Plus several key guys on the Sox are starting to show signs of age, which isn't really an issue for the Twins (outside of possibly Hunter if he stays).

 

Again, consistency is a major factor in why I would say the Twins have been better at consistently producing talent than the Sox. How many major league contributors has their system produced since 2000? The answer is not a whole lot.

 

In case you didn't notice, before he got hurt Liriano was already starting to produce like another Santana. Heck, he had a lower ERA at the time. He was quite simply one of the most dominant starters in the game and it was still only the first time he really had a full time starting spot. Given time, Garza could conceivably be another. He's already shown some flashes and he's still very young. Much as I like Gio and DLS, it's going to be A WHILE before the Sox could say the same thing.

 

Um, didn't I say virtually the EXACT SAME THING in my last post? Sure, there was some luck in their timing and you can't always get all your targets, but in that case they did and they've panned out. I'd really like to see more of that from the Sox in the near future, though I'm not sure how many of their guys can bring back significant talent.

 

Besides, I don't really see how you're considering "luck" on both sides. You're willing to dismiss the Twins' 4 division titles and consistent ability to finish ahead of us in recent history as luck, but yet you're touting the ONE time the Sox have a really good team in recent memory as an example of why this is a successful organization that performs as well/better than the Twins. I really don't get that.

 

Liriano at this point is nothing. He's another Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Mark Fidyrich, Jason Jennings...appears on the scene as a very young pitcher...looks unbelievably dominant...then blows out his arm and is never the same. Maybe he'll come back and be great...then you have two data points for the Twins...hardly at trend. As for Garza showing flashes...man did you see Floyd pitch last month? That guy looks like the real deal (except the other times when he got globbered). There is absolutely no way that you can sing the praises of Garza over Floyd...because neither has proven anything in the majors. Each has pitched roughly a 100 innings. Floyd has an 8-7 major league record. Garza a 5-10 record. Floyd has a worse ERA by two runs. But so little data to point to for either. If I was here on this website singing the praises of the #4 pick in the draft from a few years ago...who's won more than he's lost in his major league career...and say Floyd could "conceivably be another Santana" as you did about Garza? I'd be banned.

 

Twins are ok...just not to be worshipped. Sox are ok...because we LOVE them. They won the World Series two years ago. And maybe next year when Floyd and Danks and Gio are dominating...well it COULD happen.

[witesoxfan]

Liriano at this point is nothing. He's another Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Mark Fidyrich, Jason Jennings...appears on the scene as a very young pitcher...looks unbelievably dominant...then blows out his arm and is never the same. Maybe he'll come back and be great...then you have two data points for the Twins...hardly at trend. As for Garza showing flashes...man did you see Floyd pitch last month? That guy looks like the real deal (except the other times when he got globbered). There is absolutely no way that you can sing the praises of Garza over Floyd...because neither has proven anything in the majors. Each has pitched roughly a 100 innings. Floyd has an 8-7 major league record. Garza a 5-10 record. Floyd has a worse ERA by two runs. But so little data to point to for either. If I was here on this website singing the praises of the #4 pick in the draft from a few years ago...who's won more than he's lost in his major league career...and say Floyd could "conceivably be another Santana" as you did about Garza? I'd be banned.

 

Twins are ok...just not to be worshipped. Sox are ok...because we LOVE them. They won the World Series two years ago. And maybe next year when Floyd and Danks and Gio are dominating...well it COULD happen.

 

Why are you using W-L as an indicator of success?

Why do you just slightly skim over the fact that Garza's career ERA is 4.58 while Floyd's is 6.98?

Why are you essentially saying Homer Bailey, Philip Hughes, and Charlie Haeger are equals?

 

Look at the Twins bullpen over the last 5 years; you'll see roughly 10-12 different names putting together very good years for them, and then go elsewhere and perform mediocrely. Is that luck?

Look at the Twins rotation, and you'll almost always see 5 effective starters without spending $40-50 mill to do so. Is that luck?

 

Now compare that to the White Sox, and you'll see why people are praising the Twins and are critical of the Sox.

[ZoomSlowik]

First of all perhaps we have a definitional problem. The goal of baseball is to win the WS. It's not to win more games than the TWins or win more games than the Cubs. It's to win more games than EVERYONE. So in my world the score is Sox 1 Twins 0 (I'm counting last 15 years...current administrations). There IS a value in being a fan of a team that wins consistently.

 

You totally missed the point. We're not arguing which one is going to win the WS next, we're arguing who's going to have the better record over the next 3 years, where that info is ENTIRELY RELEVANT.

 

I'm choosing to not even dignify the rest with a response, since it is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, ESPECIALLY since Santana is still around for AT LEAST the first of those three years.

Edited August 23, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[Steve9347]

Garza = good

Floyd = bad

 

comparing the two of them? dumb.

[Gregory Pratt]

Garza = good

Floyd = bad

 

comparing the two of them? dumb.

 

Wrong.

 

Both = POTENTIAL

[michelangelosmonkey]

Why are you using W-L as an indicator of success?

Why do you just slightly skim over the fact that Garza's career ERA is 4.58 while Floyd's is 6.98?

Why are you essentially saying Homer Bailey, Philip Hughes, and Charlie Haeger are equals?

 

Look at the Twins bullpen over the last 5 years; you'll see roughly 10-12 different names putting together very good years for them, and then go elsewhere and perform mediocrely. Is that luck?

Look at the Twins rotation, and you'll almost always see 5 effective starters without spending $40-50 mill to do so. Is that luck?

 

Now compare that to the White Sox, and you'll see why people are praising the Twins and are critical of the Sox.

 

Look I didn't slightly skim over it...I pointed it out and it was against my argument. BUT...I've always been slightly irritated at the Baseball Prospectus crowd for completly ignoring W-L as if it is irrelevant. Buehrle has never gotten the credit I think he deserves because his K rate is so low...the strongest indicator for him that he's going to win is...he keeps winning. At some point knowing how to win a game has some relevance. But I'm NOT saying Floyd is going to be good. I'm saying it CAN'T be said that Garza will not only be good but as good as Santana. In Garza's first 15 innings this year he gave up 0 ER. The next 31 innings he gave up 17 runs. Both pitchers are 24. Both have good stuff. Both have shown glimpses of being able to be dominating. Both have been hit hard as well. Floyd's K to W rate this year is 3 to 1. Garza about 2.5 to 1. I know this will open me up to more name calling because people love Garza and hate Floyd...but until the guy starts winning more consistently...he's just another young pitcher that might or might not be good. And yes...that goes for Bailey and Hughes and Haeger. Tim Wakefield has 166 career wins and Brien Taylor has 0.

 

Still I will say that you make a helluva point with the Twins bullpen. Man they keep turning these guys up. So lucky with Santana and skillful with the bullpen.

[michelangelosmonkey]

You totally missed the point. We're not arguing which one is going to win the WS next, we're arguing who's going to have the better record over the next 3 years, where that info is ENTIRELY RELEVANT.

 

I'm choosing to not even dignify the rest with a response, since it is entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand, ESPECIALLY since Santana is still around for AT LEAST the first of those three years.

 

OK, I will agree that my point may have been misleading. The argument was the Twins will win more games than the White Sox in EACH of the next three years. And in the past the Twins have frequently had a better record than the White Sox...I will grant that point. But we are talking about the FUTURE. And the argument that the Twins have been better many years in the past I say is because of Santana...not because of brilliant talent evaluation. If someone can tell me the Twins will find $25 million per year to pay Santana...then my case weakens. But outside of Santana who is unique...the Twins procurement of talent is no more impressive than what Ken Williams did in putting together two 90 win seasons in the last three for the Sox.

[southsideirish71]

Look I didn't slightly skim over it...I pointed it out and it was against my argument. BUT...I've always been slightly irritated at the Baseball Prospectus crowd for completly ignoring W-L as if it is irrelevant. Buehrle has never gotten the credit I think he deserves because his K rate is so low...the strongest indicator for him that he's going to win is...he keeps winning. At some point knowing how to win a game has some relevance. But I'm NOT saying Floyd is going to be good. I'm saying it CAN'T be said that Garza will not only be good but as good as Santana. In Garza's first 15 innings this year he gave up 0 ER. The next 31 innings he gave up 17 runs. Both pitchers are 24. Both have good stuff. Both have shown glimpses of being able to be dominating. Both have been hit hard as well. Floyd's K to W rate this year is 3 to 1. Garza about 2.5 to 1. I know this will open me up to more name calling because people love Garza and hate Floyd...but until the guy starts winning more consistently...he's just another young pitcher that might or might not be good. And yes...that goes for Bailey and Hughes and Haeger. Tim Wakefield has 166 career wins and Brien Taylor has 0.

 

Still I will say that you make a helluva point with the Twins bullpen. Man they keep turning these guys up. So lucky with Santana and skillful with the bullpen.

 

 

Well in 2006 Randy Johnson won 17 games. Granted he was giving up 5 runs a game. But he won 17 games. I wonder if that was because he had an awsome offense behind him. Who is better the pitcher that has a 3.05 ERA and 10 wins because his offense is anemic, or the 17 game winner with the 5.00 ERA and his offense is the yankees.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2007 by southsideirish71

[Gene Honda Civic]

Put down the hyperbole gun. Carlos Silva trade was BRILLIANT scouting? Carlos Silva has been 43-43 on a team with a better than .500 record. His ERA has been 4.30 on a team with a team ERA of under 4.00. He's a guy. I don't want to undervalue just-a-guy...I remember the White Sox dreaming of getting a fifth starter in 2001. But to say the Twins refused to pay Eric Milton a fortune (sane decision) and traded him for J-a-g is brilliant scouting?

 

Again...how can we deify Terry Ryan and condemn Kenny Williams? Didn't KW get Freddie Garcia for a bunch of overvalued prospects? Didn't he find Contreas and El Duque in the Yankee's dumpster? Didn't he get Iguchi for next to nothing from Japan?

Jermaine Dye if I remember properly was a blue light special at Kmart? I will HAPPILY say that the Twins are a worthy opponent in accumulating talent. But to look into the future and say the Sox are doomed and the Twins are great because of their superiority in evaluation of major and minor talent? There is no evidence in the past to confirm that and some evidence (world series ring) to prove Kenny is smarter than Terry.

Yeah... Just a guy... here's a list of all the pitchers in the AL (since 2004) to throw 700+ innings with an ERA+ over 100... 8 f***ing "guys"

 

How can we deify Ryan and condemn Williams? Did I bring up Williams? No, but keep calling me the debating equivalent of a Cubs fan while you run around changing the subject.

[ZoomSlowik]

Look I didn't slightly skim over it...I pointed it out and it was against my argument. BUT...I've always been slightly irritated at the Baseball Prospectus crowd for completly ignoring W-L as if it is irrelevant. Buehrle has never gotten the credit I think he deserves because his K rate is so low...the strongest indicator for him that he's going to win is...he keeps winning. At some point knowing how to win a game has some relevance. But I'm NOT saying Floyd is going to be good. I'm saying it CAN'T be said that Garza will not only be good but as good as Santana. In Garza's first 15 innings this year he gave up 0 ER. The next 31 innings he gave up 17 runs. Both pitchers are 24. Both have good stuff. Both have shown glimpses of being able to be dominating. Both have been hit hard as well. Floyd's K to W rate this year is 3 to 1. Garza about 2.5 to 1. I know this will open me up to more name calling because people love Garza and hate Floyd...but until the guy starts winning more consistently...he's just another young pitcher that might or might not be good. And yes...that goes for Bailey and Hughes and Haeger. Tim Wakefield has 166 career wins and Brien Taylor has 0.

 

Still I will say that you make a helluva point with the Twins bullpen. Man they keep turning these guys up. So lucky with Santana and skillful with the bullpen.

 

Yeah, I'd say you "slightly skimmed over it". 2 runs is a hell of a difference, a hell of a lot more than a few ticks on the win/loss record. Even in Garza's BAD stretches he's proven to be better than Floyd. There's also a slight difference between having one good start surrounded by several starts where he got lit up like a Christmas tree and stringing together seven starts with allowing fewer than 3 runs. Also, they're not both 24, Garza is essentially a year younger, and has far less experience in pro baseball, yet has put up far better numbers thus far. He also has MUCH better stuff than Floyd, there's a slight difference between throwing in the mid-to-high 90's with a solid breaking ball and throwing in the low 90's with an inconsistent one.

 

My bad, I didn't realize that by "another Santana" you meant another freakishly good pitcher and not just another capable starter that'll win a lot of ball games. I didn't realize that a team had to produce 3 Cy Young winners to be good at scouting.

 

When evaluating two pitchers, wins basically are irrelevant. What team you play on can have a tremedous effect on your record. The other guys on your team have to score runs and the bullpen has to hold the lead once you leave. That's entirely out of your control and can vary greatly from year to year. Buehrle is likely to have a similar record this year as last year despite having an ERA that's about a run and a half lower. THAT's why comparing records doesn't have a whole lot of value, at least certainly not as a determining factor.

 

Why does Brian Taylor even matter? He's a guy that got hurt before he had a chance to do anything. Matt Garza is already at the major league level and is AT WORST a league average starter right now. I really don't see how that's relevant. Just because they MIGHT get hurt doesn't mean you can totally dismiss their talent and lump them in with the other masses of guys that haven't done anything in the majors and probably won't like Floyd and Haegar.

 

[witesoxfan]

Look I didn't slightly skim over it...I pointed it out and it was against my argument. BUT...I've always been slightly irritated at the Baseball Prospectus crowd for completly ignoring W-L as if it is irrelevant. Buehrle has never gotten the credit I think he deserves because his K rate is so low...the strongest indicator for him that he's going to win is...he keeps winning. At some point knowing how to win a game has some relevance. But I'm NOT saying Floyd is going to be good. I'm saying it CAN'T be said that Garza will not only be good but as good as Santana. In Garza's first 15 innings this year he gave up 0 ER. The next 31 innings he gave up 17 runs. Both pitchers are 24. Both have good stuff. Both have shown glimpses of being able to be dominating. Both have been hit hard as well. Floyd's K to W rate this year is 3 to 1. Garza about 2.5 to 1. I know this will open me up to more name calling because people love Garza and hate Floyd...but until the guy starts winning more consistently...he's just another young pitcher that might or might not be good. And yes...that goes for Bailey and Hughes and Haeger. Tim Wakefield has 166 career wins and Brien Taylor has 0.

 

Still I will say that you make a helluva point with the Twins bullpen. Man they keep turning these guys up. So lucky with Santana and skillful with the bullpen.

 

I hope you know that you are talking to (probably) the biggest Floyd fan on the site, and there is still no way you can compare Garza to Floyd. Garza has a plus fastball, a plus curve, and I'm sure he has a 2 seamer and/or a change in there as well which is adequate. I'm not sure if Floyd has anything besides a sinker and a curve; those two pitches can someday make him into a Jake Westbrook type starter, but you aren't ever going to depend upon that to be atop your rotation. Garza's ceiling is higher than Gio's, and the only arm within the organization making under 7 digits a year that has a shot at being as good as Garza is De Los Santos, and he's in W-S.

 

On Buehrle, B-P hates him because he doesn't have the outstanding peripherals they look for. However, Buehrle is good because of his control, plain and simple; not necessarily BB control, but rather just control of the strike zone. When he is getting groundballs and not leaving the ball right over the plate, he succeeds. When he gets the ball up, and he leaves it over the middle of the plate, he puts up an ERA of 6 and a half for half a season. He's not just good because he's a winner; he's good largely because of location.

 

Oh, and on Haeger; Jared Fernandez has 4 career wins, Roger Clemens has 353. I can play that game too.

[michelangelosmonkey]

Yeah... Just a guy... here's a list of all the pitchers in the AL (since 2004) to throw 700+ innings with an ERA+ over 100... 8 f***ing "guys"

 

How can we deify Ryan and condemn Williams? Did I bring up Williams? No, but keep calling me the debating equivalent of a Cubs fan while you run around changing the subject.

You wrote this:

Here is another list...

 

Eggs

Broccoli

Cajun seasoning

Butter

Pepsi

Chicken livers

 

Broccoli = your post. Not worth eating.

What kind of debate is that? We can argue like intelligent civil people (Sox fans)...or we can call names(Cub fans). If you disagree with me...fine...point out my flaws. But to say, in effect, "you are so stupid I won't even comment" ????

 

And no...YOU didn't bring up Kenny Williams but the premise "Twins better than the White Sox each of the next three years" implies the Twins GM is smarter than the Sox GM...especially in the light of the fact the Sox can spend more than the Twins.

 

You actually are raising my respect for Carlos Silva. Curious that a guy that good on a perenial playoff team, with a fantastic bullpen has such a low winning percent. What happens to his position if the innings is lowered to 600?

[michelangelosmonkey]

Well in 2006 Randy Johnson won 17 games. Granted he was giving up 5 runs a game. But he won 17 games. I wonder if that was because he had an awsome offense behind him. Who is better the pitcher that has a 3.05 ERA and 10 wins because his offense is anemic, or the 17 game winner with the 5.00 ERA and his offense is the yankees.

Obviously the guy with the 3.05 ERA. My point is that W-L is not completely irrelevant. Randy Johnson had about 16 quality starts last year...and about 16 where he was horrid. Ozzie has left pitchers in, like Garland, to give up 10 runs in 3 innings when he didn't have it...and it destroys his ERA but only goes for 1 loss. To support ERA, and K/Ip or K/BB or 15 other measures over wins is fine. But to throw out wins as completely irrelevant I think is wrong too. Over the years when they list "top young pitchers" no publication EVER includes Buehrle...though Buehrle has more victories than almost any of them. Winning is a skill too.

[ZoomSlowik]

Obviously the guy with the 3.05 ERA. My point is that W-L is not completely irrelevant. Randy Johnson had about 16 quality starts last year...and about 16 where he was horrid. Ozzie has left pitchers in, like Garland, to give up 10 runs in 3 innings when he didn't have it...and it destroys his ERA but only goes for 1 loss. To support ERA, and K/Ip or K/BB or 15 other measures over wins is fine. But to throw out wins as completely irrelevant I think is wrong too. Over the years when they list "top young pitchers" no publication EVER includes Buehrle...though Buehrle has more victories than almost any of them. Winning is a skill too.

 

Not exactly. Winning is a RESULT of having skill and/or being on a good team. Guys like Steve Carlton that rack up tons of wins for awful teams are pretty rare. Buehrle has been a pretty solid player that doesn't get hurt on a team that has been competitive for a while, of course he's going to have a pretty high win total. That doesn't mean that I'm going to take him over someone like Jake Peavy that has more talent but a much more modest record though.

 

There are countless examples of guys that are either pretty talented and have low win totals and of guys that aren't all that good but come up with a good win total. It's far from a sure-fire statistic. The mental giants at ESPN got all excited about Aaron Small after he started 10-0 a few years ago for no good reason, look at him now.

[michelangelosmonkey]

Yeah, I'd say you "slightly skimmed over it". 2 runs is a hell of a difference, a hell of a lot more than a few ticks on the win/loss record. Even in Garza's BAD stretches he's proven to be better than Floyd. There's also a slight difference between having one good start surrounded by several starts where he got lit up like a Christmas tree and stringing together seven starts with allowing fewer than 3 runs. Also, they're not both 24, Garza is essentially a year younger, and has far less experience in pro baseball, yet has put up far better numbers thus far. He also has MUCH better stuff than Floyd, there's a slight difference between throwing in the mid-to-high 90's with a solid breaking ball and throwing in the low 90's with an inconsistent one.

 

My bad, I didn't realize that by "another Santana" you meant another freakishly good pitcher and not just another capable starter that'll win a lot of ball games. I didn't realize that a team had to produce 3 Cy Young winners to be good at scouting.

 

When evaluating two pitchers, wins basically are irrelevant. What team you play on can have a tremedous effect on your record. The other guys on your team have to score runs and the bullpen has to hold the lead once you leave. That's entirely out of your control and can vary greatly from year to year. Buehrle is likely to have a similar record this year as last year despite having an ERA that's about a run and a half lower. THAT's why comparing records doesn't have a whole lot of value, at least certainly not as a determining factor.

 

Why does Brian Taylor even matter? He's a guy that got hurt before he had a chance to do anything. Matt Garza is already at the major league level and is AT WORST a league average starter right now. I really don't see how that's relevant. Just because they MIGHT get hurt doesn't mean you can totally dismiss their talent and lump them in with the other masses of guys that haven't done anything in the majors and probably won't like Floyd and Haegar.

I don't know why we are fighting. You would be an excellent agent for Garza. You are clearly a knowledgeable baseball fan. I'm just saying, as the moneyball guys out there say, there's no such thing as a pitching prospect. Guys can get major leaguers out or they can't. There have been a million flairouts like Brien Tayler...because of injury, because of a lack of confidence, or control, or whatever...guys with fantasitc potential. There are a million guys like Ruffcorn and Jason Bere who tease you and then fail. I'm not totally dismissing Garza...but you are totally dismissing Floyd based on a few innings pitched at the majors. You totally dismiss a knuckleballer like Haeger who is WAY ahead of TIm Wakefields development with the pitch. I claim no universal knowledge...it is everyone else here...that is certain Garza will be an above average ML pitcher. All I'm saying is, yeah, maybe. Maybe FLoyd

[ZoomSlowik]

I don't know why we are fighting. You would be an excellent agent for Garza. You are clearly a knowledgeable baseball fan. I'm just saying, as the moneyball guys out there say, there's no such thing as a pitching prospect. Guys can get major leaguers out or they can't. There have been a million flairouts like Brien Tayler...because of injury, because of a lack of confidence, or control, or whatever...guys with fantasitc potential. There are a million guys like Ruffcorn and Jason Bere who tease you and then fail. I'm not totally dismissing Garza...but you are totally dismissing Floyd based on a few innings pitched at the majors. You totally dismiss a knuckleballer like Haeger who is WAY ahead of TIm Wakefields development with the pitch. I claim no universal knowledge...it is everyone else here...that is certain Garza will be an above average ML pitcher. All I'm saying is, yeah, maybe. Maybe FLoyd

 

Floyd has had numerous opportunities and he hasn't just been bad, he's been AWFUL. There's quite a difference between being 5-ish ERA bad and being 7-ish ERA bad. Unless he finds a new pitch that can help him or something, things look pretty bad.

 

As for Wakefield/Haeger, not all knuckleballers are equal, and even Wakefield isn't exactly a Cy Young candidate. Just because he can throw one that gets minor leaguers out doesn't mean he's going to be any good. There's a reason that Wakefield is the only one in recent memory that has had any success, and it's been made reasonably clear that the organization doesn't have a ton of faith in him.

 

Pitching prospects aren't a sure thing, but I'd MUCH rather have them than not. Cheap, productive young starters are the most valuable assets you can get, and teams don't exactly trade them once they hit the majors too often.

Edited August 23, 2007 by ZoomSlowik

[michelangelosmonkey]

I hope you know that you are talking to (probably) the biggest Floyd fan on the site, and there is still no way you can compare Garza to Floyd. Garza has a plus fastball, a plus curve, and I'm sure he has a 2 seamer and/or a change in there as well which is adequate. I'm not sure if Floyd has anything besides a sinker and a curve; those two pitches can someday make him into a Jake Westbrook type starter, but you aren't ever going to depend upon that to be atop your rotation. Garza's ceiling is higher than Gio's, and the only arm within the organization making under 7 digits a year that has a shot at being as good as Garza is De Los Santos, and he's in W-S.

 

On Buehrle, B-P hates him because he doesn't have the outstanding peripherals they look for. However, Buehrle is good because of his control, plain and simple; not necessarily BB control, but rather just control of the strike zone. When he is getting groundballs and not leaving the ball right over the plate, he succeeds. When he gets the ball up, and he leaves it over the middle of the plate, he puts up an ERA of 6 and a half for half a season. He's not just good because he's a winner; he's good largely because of location.

 

Oh, and on Haeger; Jared Fernandez has 4 career wins, Roger Clemens has 353. I can play that game too.

OK...it looks like me against the board. You guys sure don't treat dissenting newbies with any patience. You say there's no one that can compare with Garza because of his stuff. Gavin Floyd was the #4 overall pick in the 2001 draft because of his great stuff. He sure hasn't harnassed it yet but somewhere inside him... Jake Peavey was a 15th round selection but somewhere between everyone saying he didn't have the stuff to draft high...he found stuff. There's just absolutely no way that you can make the claim that there is only one guy in the Sox organization that has a "a shot at being as good as Garza." It's is entirely possible that Garza won't be any good...and then we have a whole SYSTEM full of guys that could be as good. You could say that there is no one in the Sox organization outside of DLS that could be as good as Santana...and then I would agree. But until Garza is Santana...well he's just another 24 year old with a 5-10 record.

 

As for Haeger...man he's a 24 year old coming very close to mastering the knuckleball. To write him off completely is just wrong.

[RockRaines]

OK...it looks like me against the board. You guys sure don't treat dissenting newbies with any patience. You say there's no one that can compare with Garza because of his stuff. Gavin Floyd was the #4 overall pick in the 2001 draft because of his great stuff. He sure hasn't harnassed it yet but somewhere inside him... Jake Peavey was a 15th round selection but somewhere between everyone saying he didn't have the stuff to draft high...he found stuff. There's just absolutely no way that you can make the claim that there is only one guy in the Sox organization that has a "a shot at being as good as Garza." It's is entirely possible that Garza won't be any good...and then we have a whole SYSTEM full of guys that could be as good. You could say that there is no one in the Sox organization outside of DLS that could be as good as Santana...and then I would agree. But until Garza is Santana...well he's just another 24 year old with a 5-10 record.

 

As for Haeger...man he's a 24 year old coming very close to mastering the knuckleball. To write him off completely is just wrong.

I agree with you, but its a needless fight against certain people who want nothing more than to have a team just like the Twins. Frankly, ask a die hard twins fan and they would trade our WS title in 2005 for all of these first round exits and seasons where they have Ponson as a piece of their rotation. With the loss of Tori Hunter, Santana, and the question marks surrounding Mark Prior 2, they may have some dark days ahead of them.

[ZoomSlowik]

I agree with you, but its a needless fight against certain people who want nothing more than to have a team just like the Twins. Frankly, ask a die hard twins fan and they would trade our WS title in 2005 for all of these first round exits and seasons where they have Ponson as a piece of their rotation. With the loss of Tori Hunter, Santana, and the question marks surrounding Mark Prior 2, they may have some dark days ahead of them.

 

Ponson made 7 starts for them and was quickly replaced by some of their young arms...

 

I wouldn't go THAT far. Even assuming those guys are gone, they still have Morneau, Mauer, and Cuddyer for a while, which is 3 legit hitters, and enough young arms with some talent to cobble together a decent rotation. We've been touting the Twins' demise for quite some time and it still hasn't come yet.

 

I don't really care if we follow the Twins' blueprint or not, I'd just like to see some of our young guys come up and contribute to a team that looks like it needs an infusion of talent, especially since it's starting to look like there won't be a ton of money to be spent in free agency. It gets a little harder to go outside the organization and find pieces that you need if you're giving $70 mil to 7 players (granted they can ease that a bit by dealing one). Those cheap, productive pieces then let you go out and do some damage with your $100 mil payroll, something the Twins can't do.

 

Unfortunately once you get past the guys currently on the roster I don't have a whole lot of faith in the guys on the horizon, at least until we get to Gio and DLS. Hopefully Fields, Richar, and Danks can make some strides and that'll keep them competitive until then.

 

I led off this whole thing by saying I thing we can finish ahead of them and be competitive in the near future, it just won't be easy. There are clearly some things that still need to be fixed, and I don't know how much of the help can come from within the organization right now.

Edited August 23, 2007 by ZoomSlowik