2011-12 White Sox off season catch all thread

[Balta1701]

How can you be sure that the learning experience Danks had between 07' and 08' can't occur this offseason for Stewart?

Because he hasn't had the "2007" experience of pitching nearly an entire year in the big leagues that Danks had, and that was when he really got the experience he needed?

[southsider2k5]

Because he hasn't had the "2007" experience of pitching nearly an entire year in the big leagues that Danks had, and that was when he really got the experience he needed?

 

It sure didn't stop Alexi Ogondo from pretty well pitching Texas into the world series.

[iamshack]

Because he hasn't had the "2007" experience of pitching nearly an entire year in the big leagues that Danks had, and that was when he really got the experience he needed?

How do you know that a full year is some magical number that is required by every young pitcher in order to succeed?

 

I can't say this any more clearly:

 

The odds are he would struggle a bit if we inserted him as a full-time starter right out of the gate, but for you to claim that there is simply no chance whatsoever that we could compete for the division with him as our 5th starter is just nonsense.

[Balta1701]

How do you know that a full year is some magical number that is required by every young pitcher in order to succeed?

 

I can't say this any more clearly:

 

The odds are he would struggle a bit if we inserted him as a full-time starter right out of the gate, but for you to claim that there is simply no chance whatsoever that we could compete for the division with him as our 5th starter is just nonsense.

"Struggle a bit"?

 

Not the guy I watched last year. He will struggle a lot.

[Balta1701]

It sure didn't stop Alexi Ogondo from pretty well pitching Texas into the world series.

If Zach Stewart takes 3 years in South America pitching, then comes back and spends a year in the bullpen and puts up an ERA in the 1's, I will be fully content to move him to the rotation at that point and hope for success.

[iamshack]

"Struggle a bit"?

 

Not the guy I watched last year. He will struggle a lot.

And this is probably the same s*** you'd say about Danks prior to the 2008 season.

[Balta1701]

And this is probably the same s*** you'd say about Danks prior to the 2008 season.

John Danks prior to 2008:

 

Minor league innings

435.1

Major League innings:

139

 

Zach Stewart prior to 2012:

Minor league innings:

375

Major League innigns:

67 (50 with the Sox last year).

 

See the difference? Stewart is basically right where Danks was starting 07, maybe even behind him because of the amount of time spent as a reliever.

[iamshack]

John Danks prior to 2008:

 

Minor league innings

435.1

Major League innings:

139

 

Zach Stewart prior to 2012:

Minor league innings:

375

Major League innigns:

67 (50 with the Sox last year).

 

See the difference? Stewart is basically right where Danks was starting 07, maybe even behind him because of the amount of time spent as a reliever.

How do you know there is some minimum number of innings required to make the leap? What if Stewart had pitched 110 innings? Would you pronounce him not ready yet?

 

How many MiLB and MLB innings did Dan Hudson have before putting things together?

 

What makes you so qualified all the sudden to tell us all when a young pitcher is ready to make the leap to success as a MLB starter?

Edited December 26, 2011 by iamshack

[Balta1701]

What makes you so qualified all the sudden to tell us all when a young pitcher is ready to make the leap to success as a MLB starter?

I'm no less qualified than you are.

 

The kid's stuff just wasn't there. He's raw. I could defer to others, but I don't need to, what he showed us in the bigs bore it out. His offspeed stuff is solid but very inconsistent at best for now. His 2 seamer got ground balls, but was still too hittable. He couldn't control stuff consistently. He had all the earmarks of a guy who needs to get innings consistently, and he hasn't quite gotten that yet. He has never spent more than a couple games at AAA. With seasoning, he might well get there soon, but he's not going to step in and be a quality starter at the end of the line this year.

[iamshack]

I'm no less qualified than you are.

 

The kid's stuff just wasn't there. He's raw. I could defer to others, but I don't need to, what he showed us in the bigs bore it out. His offspeed stuff is solid but very inconsistent at best for now. His 2 seamer got ground balls, but was still too hittable. He couldn't control stuff consistently. He had all the earmarks of a guy who needs to get innings consistently, and he hasn't quite gotten that yet. He has never spent more than a couple games at AAA. With seasoning, he might well get there soon, but he's not going to step in and be a quality starter at the end of the line this year.

I didn't say you were less-qualified than I am.

 

I objected to your pompous "I cannot make this any more clear" bs.

 

Yes, you're probably correct that he needs more seasoning, but if you think you can suddenly predict things that MLB scouts can't predict, you need to take a step back and not be so condescending.

[Balta1701]

Yes, you're probably correct that he needs more seasoning, but if you think you can suddenly predict things that MLB scouts can't predict, you need to take a step back and not be so condescending.

The only non-private scout who really thought Stewart might be a useful guy in the future was Keith Law, and even he said he was a couple years out and needed time to grow as a starter.

 

If you pencil in Zach Stewart into the 5th starter role, you are making a more that is very, very likely to cost you any chance of competing this season. There is no other way around it.

 

If you are going to plan for Zach Stewart to be your 5th starter, and you want to compete, you better also plan to have the best offense and best bullpen in the AL. If he does better than that, great, but that's winning a sucker bet in Vegas. It might happen, but it's not a winning strategy.

[southsider2k5]

I didn't say you were less-qualified than I am.

 

I objected to your pompous "I cannot make this any more clear" bs.

 

Yes, you're probably correct that he needs more seasoning, but if you think you can suddenly predict things that MLB scouts can't predict, you need to take a step back and not be so condescending.

[beck72]

I can't say this any more clearly.

 

Zach Stewart is not ready to be a starting pitcher in the big leagues in 2012.

 

If you put him there, it might be ok for his development, but it is not a path to a winning record.

I think the sox can find a 5th starter out of what they have now in one of Stewart, Axelrod, Molina, or a few non-roster invitees ala Humber last year. If the Sox can get a few impact players with trading Floyd and Quentin, they still can compete in the AL Central in 2012 [ie, having a .500 record]. Ultimately, the sox are probably looking at 2013 for a winning record.

 

The Sox should be under no allusions that they're ready to win a World Series in 2012. So having a few guys struggle, that ultimately have them set up for a very strong 2013, might be best long term for the sox. This is with or without Floyd in the rotation.

 

 

[iamshack]

The only non-private scout who really thought Stewart might be a useful guy in the future was Keith Law, and even he said he was a couple years out and needed time to grow as a starter.

 

If you pencil in Zach Stewart into the 5th starter role, you are making a more that is very, very likely to cost you any chance of competing this season. There is no other way around it.

 

If you are going to plan for Zach Stewart to be your 5th starter, and you want to compete, you better also plan to have the best offense and best bullpen in the AL. If he does better than that, great, but that's winning a sucker bet in Vegas. It might happen, but it's not a winning strategy.

The only non-private scout? So are the non-private scouts usually more accurate than the private scouts?

 

I know Alex Anthopolous stated that our scouts have been really high on Stewart for a while now, so my guess is some of the "private" scouts did actually like Stewart.

 

Regardless, who are you putting ahead of him at this point that you feel so incredible with?

[beck72]

John Danks prior to 2008:

 

Minor league innings

435.1

Major League innings:

139

 

Zach Stewart prior to 2012:

Minor league innings:

375

Major League innigns:

67 (50 with the Sox last year).

 

See the difference? Stewart is basically right where Danks was starting 07, maybe even behind him because of the amount of time spent as a reliever.

Those numbers don't include Stewart's 3 years of college numbers. Danks came right out of high school.

 

I'm not saying he's the answer at the 5th spot. But he should be in the picture. Stewart does remind me a bit of Floyd. When he doesn't hit his spots, or the occasional rolling breaking ball, he gets hit hard. Whether that's correctable for Coop remains to be seen.

[Balta1701]

The only non-private scout? So are the non-private scouts usually more accurate than the private scouts?

 

I know Alex Anthopolous stated that our scouts have been really high on Stewart for a while now, so my guess is some of the "private" scouts did actually like Stewart.

 

Regardless, who are you putting ahead of him at this point that you feel so incredible with?

I assumed that you had to be saying that the Sox's private scouts were the ones saying he was going to be fine this year, since there's no one else out there saying that.

[Balta1701]

Those numbers don't include Stewart's 3 years of college numbers. Danks came right out of high school.

 

I'm not saying he's the answer at the 5th spot. But he should be in the picture. Stewart does remind me a bit of Floyd. When he doesn't hit his spots, or the occasional rolling breaking ball, he gets hit hard. Whether that's correctable for Coop remains to be seen.

Floyd is an interesting Comp. Pre-07, Floyd had to get his brain back together, He did that in 2007, mostly in Charlotte, but a little bit in the bigs. Pre-08, I was one of Floyd's biggest backers, and most people here doubted me because his only good games had come against Detroit and he gave up a number of fly balls that would have left the Cell.

 

Stewart is quite a bit more raw than Floyd was. He's not going to live and die based on the offspeed stuff like Floyd, but his offspeed stuff is also less developed than G's was.

 

If he's in the picture, that means to me that we went "much harsher rebuild" and we should think that way with the rest of the roster.

[iamshack]

I assumed that you had to be saying that the Sox's private scouts were the ones saying he was going to be fine this year, since there's no one else out there saying that.

I was not talking about any particular scouts or any scout's opinion on Stewart in particular. I was commenting on the fact that scouting is more of an art than a science, and there are guys that prove scouts wrong all the time.

 

I'm pretty sure you're just missing the entire pont altogether though, because you seem hell bent on the notion that baseball (and the players) is something that you can predict with some high level of certainty.

 

It's not.

[Balta1701]

I was not talking about any particular scouts or any scout's opinion on Stewart in particular. I was commenting on the fact that scouting is more of an art than a science, and there are guys that prove scouts wrong all the time.

 

I'm pretty sure you're just missing the entire pont altogether though, because you seem hell bent on the notion that baseball (and the players) is something that you can predict with some high level of certainty.

 

It's not.

That doesn't mean that high-risk, low reward moves are a good strategy.

 

Zach Stewart has a very low probability of being a decent pitcher in the big leagues this year, especially compared with Gavin Floyd. If we're planning on trading Gavin Floyd...at this point, it seems incredibly unlikely that the return is going to improve the MLB Ballclub this year. That means if you trade Floyd and go with Stewart as starter 5 for this season, you may be making a move that will be high reward in terms of 2013...but in 2012, it is a very low reward, very high risk set of moves.

[iamshack]

That doesn't mean that high-risk, low reward moves are a good strategy.

 

Zach Stewart has a very low probability of being a decent pitcher in the big leagues this year, especially compared with Gavin Floyd. If we're planning on trading Gavin Floyd...at this point, it seems incredibly unlikely that the return is going to improve the MLB Ballclub this year. That means if you trade Floyd and go with Stewart as starter 5 for this season, you may be making a move that will be high reward in terms of 2013...but in 2012, it is a very low reward, very high risk set of moves.

This is just another way of you being pompous and ridiculous again.

 

If it's anything, the move would be moderately high-risk/moderately high reward.

 

Dress up your opinion anyway you want, the bottom line is you don't know well-enough, know one knows well-enough for sure at this point, whether or not Stewart could be a reasonably successful 5th starter if given the reigns out of the gate next season.

[Balta1701]

If it's anything, the move would be moderately high-risk/moderately high reward.

High-reward? So Zach Stewart is going to come out next year and be better than Gavin Floyd?

[gatnom]

Balta, you may be right about Stewart not being ready, but you're also not considering how we are retooling, rebuilding, whatever. Kenny is trying to put together the best roster he can while still positioning himself to be "rebuilt" in a year or two. If we were trying to compete in the sense that we wouldn't want to risk throwing Stewart to the wolves, we wouldn't have traded Sergio.

 

 

[iamshack]

High-reward? So Zach Stewart is going to come out next year and be better than Gavin Floyd?

I honestly doubt it. But Gavin put up a 4.37 ERA last year. What if you trade Floyd and get a young solid pen arm and a SP prospect, and then Stewart puts up an ERA in the 4.3-46 range, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility for him.

 

You gain a RP, an SP prospect, and approximately $7 million in salary relief.

 

I'd say that's a moderately high-reward.

[Balta1701]

Balta, you may be right about Stewart not being ready, but you're also not considering how we are retooling, rebuilding, whatever. Kenny is trying to put together the best roster he can while still positioning himself to be "rebuilt" in a year or two. If we were trying to compete in the sense that we wouldn't want to risk throwing Stewart to the wolves, we wouldn't have traded Sergio.

What many people have told me already is that we might well be still able to be competitive without Sergio, because we have a guy who might be ready to step in and do the exact same job in Reed. Personally I think that's a mistake, but that's a mistake we already made if so.

 

If we make a move for the 2012 roster that basically replaces Floyd with Stewart, it's an even bigger step back. Santos, I can buy he's replaceable because he's a closer and closers are more replaceable than we think. We just have to replace 1.6 WAR there. Ok, I can live with that.

 

The rotation is already iffy. We're already trying to replace 3.5 WAR in the loss of Mark. Ok, maybe Sale + a better Peavy + a Humber who threw 150 innings last year can cover that. Maybe.

 

But then you trade away Gavin Floyd...there's another 3.6 WAR gone from the rotation. And we're already already trying to replace Mark, so now we need to replace 7 WAR from the rotation, 3 WAR from the bullpen (counting Sale). And this wasn't exactly a first place team last year.

[Balta1701]

I honestly doubt it. But Gavin put up a 4.37 ERA last year. What if you trade Floyd and get a young solid pen arm and a SP prospect, and then Stewart puts up an ERA in the 4.3-46 range, which certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility for him.

 

You gain a RP, an SP prospect, and approximately $7 million in salary relief.

 

I'd say that's a moderately high-reward.

But you ignored my actual words. That's high reward when your SP prospect is ready. I said "you may be making a move that will be high reward in terms of 2013...but in 2012, it is a very low reward, very high risk set of moves."

 

A relief pitcher in exchange for Floyd is not making a big 2012 impact. That means that the ceiling for the performance is what you get out of Stewart + relief pticher, which as you said...is basically what Gavin Floyd would give you.

 

In 2012, that's a low-reward, high risk move. In 2013, it could produce very high rewards, but its the kind of move that if you make it, you do so with the understanding that it is very likely to break apart any chance you have for competing in 2012. And if you're going to make that move...you ought to commit to focusing on 2013 with the rest of the roster too.