Felix

I cannot wait. This is the second Bears game all year I get to watch (the other being the Bucs game)

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 06:00 PM) Oh, by the way, the White Sox were 11-0 in the postseason when Bill Melton did pre/post game. They lost the only game he missed. (Game 1 ALCS, Ron Kittle) They were also 11-0 in games which I didn't miss any of due to work The only day I didn't skip was the day they lost.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 04:30 AM) I know you saw all the games..... But I dont think Stewart belongs on the top 10 at all... To be fair, Stewart is #11 on that list, so he's not in the top 10

QUOTE(Frank the Tank 35 @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 06:31 PM) or an upgraded bat, like Blalock Personally, I wouldn't call Blalock much of an upgraded bat.. if at all.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 11:21 AM) I disagree that BMac is on the same level as Garland. We've seen Garland develop into a major league pitcher. I think he is far more likely to win 15 games than 10. I watched as this staff went into season after season with 3 or 4 solid starters and a prayer. Far better to have 6 or 7, Cotts may be ready as well, is much better for winning today. McCarthy is far from a prayer, but if you want to consider him one, have fun doing so. I think, as do a lot of other people, McCarthy is ready for the majors, and it would be a real shame to leave him on the bench.. Thats basically my reasoning for trading him. Garland is the most expendable out of our staff simply because he won't be back in 2007. If we trade him now, we can get a good package in exchange. If we trade him at the trading deadline, he might have already sucked in the first half of the year, and we wouldn't get nearly as much as we would get if we traded him now. QUOTE(TLAK @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 11:24 AM) Thats an interesting take. I pulled the daily records of the guys you mentioned from Baseball Musings and added the White Sox rotation. All these guys are pretty successful so I also added 7-16 Nate Robertson for comparison. I calc'd the pitcher's ERA for that day and if he got a decision. You're looking at ERA here not raw runs and the ERA is based on that day only. At the bottom I totaled them by excellent, meh and horrible outings. Viewed this way, Clemens was indeed fantastic and the qualitative difference between Smoltz and Lopez is striking, even greater than your stats show. Smoltz had 20 excellent outings and got 11 wins out of them, Lopez had only 15 excellent ones and still got 11 wins out of them. But Smoltz only had 2 horrible outings while Lopez buried his team 12 times. The pitcher who gives his team a good chance to win every start is the better pitcher, which is a very long winded way to say I agree with you. I like your way of looking at it. Nice job

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 09:22 AM) Would that help or hurt the teams chances in 2006 to repeat? Wouldn't make a difference since we have 5 other starters, all of which are either on the same level or are better than Garland. It would just help rebuild our farm system which was taken apart this offseason, and get the most value out of Garland, who isn't going to resign after the 2006 season anyway.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 08:55 AM) Yes, you said he was proven. I said in that quote that he proved that he was a starter rather than a reliever. I didn't say he was a proven starter. As I've said before, since trading Garland would likely be for prospects, we would get prospects which a team would give up for a #1 or #2 pitcher, which Garland is not IMO (until he does what he did last season consistantly). According to various quotes, KW has been asking for a lot in exchange for Garland, which is very encouraging.

QUOTE(TLAK @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 08:41 AM) One more thing to consider is who backs up Kong/Thome in case something happens to one of them? I suppose you could run one of the young guys out into RF and DH Jermaine Dye? Or Mackowiak? You might want to use the last place on the roster to pick up an older player, like a Matt Stairs type, to serve as insurance. I have a hunch it might be Ross Gload, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 01:24 AM) Ryan Franklin's a good chance to get non - tendered, if you're looking for a swingman, he hasn't been good in the last 2 seasond, but he's almost thrown 200 innings for the last 3 years. Wasn't Franklin on steroids?

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 18, 2005 -> 01:10 AM) You claim BMac is proven, proven at what level above Garland? I do? QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 08:31 AM) (talking about Brandon McCarthy) Yea, he hasn't proven anything A pitcher has just about the same influence as his teams offense. Look at Roger Clemens last year. Amazing season, and should have won the Cy Young, but he didn't have a lot of wins. Look at Jon Lieber last year. He won 17 games, but had a 4+ ERA and 1.2+ WHIP. Would you say that Lieber was a better pitcher because he won more games? Hell, lets put it this way. Again looking at last years stats, Rodrigo Lopez and John Smoltz (or Roger Clemens if you want, its the same result). Lopez won 15 games, while Smoltz won 14. Lopez had a 4.90 ERA, while Smoltz had a 3.06 ERA. Lopez had a 1.41 WHIP, while Smoltz had a 1.15 WHIP. Are you going to tell me Lopez was a better pitcher last year because he won more games?

QUOTE(shawnhillegas @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 09:30 PM) so here's an honest question. i've never seen wilkerson play but his numbers (with the exception of his very decent OBP and his homerun total in 2004) seem unimpressive. Do we doubt that Anderson could hit 250 with 11 homers? anyway, everyone on this board loves this guy, what am i missing? You are missing the fact that he played in RFK last year, which is the biggest pitching park in the league. And yea, he's not going to give you a high average, but you'll get an extremely high OBP while posting a good amount of doubles, and a decent amount of homeruns.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 09:02 PM) If it's between Owens or Willie, I'd much rather it be Owens. As crazy as it sounds, I think I would rather Willie in the majors with Owens in AAA.

QUOTE(fathom @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 08:58 PM) The way Ozzie uses his bench, Owens would get plenty of starts. As long as it's not Timo, I'll be happy. True, but I think Owens would be better off in AAA than in the majors.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 08:46 PM) Good point. I still think people here love Bajenaru way too much. I know it's a small sample size but everytime he pitches for us he gets shellacked. His stuff doesn't seem very impressive to me. I agree with that, and yea, he doesn't seem all that impressive in the majors, but neither does Brower. If Baj could put up an ERA ~5 or so, it would probably be just about the same thing that Brower could do. Baj has proven that he can dominate AAA, so I think he should actually be given a serious chance in the majors to prove that he isn't a AAAA player.

I would want to see just about anyone other than Owens. I don't want to see his development hindered by sitting on the bench the whole year when he could be starting in AAA.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 08:41 PM) There's not much better available unless you trade for a reliever. I think Baj or Tracey would be able to match Brower's performance, so I dont really see the need in adding him when we already have similar, or better, options in-house.

I would think Kolb would be too expensive, while being somewhat of a risk, and I think Brower just looks like a crap reliever.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 08:54 AM) Starting pitchers who can pitch 6 seasons in the majors and compile a winning record, are well above average. Did you just ignore everything I said about wins being team dependant? Pitchers can win games because they get tons of run support, but will still be average pitchers. Garland is an average pitcher unless he proves that last year was not a fluke.

QUOTE(Jake @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 01:31 PM) For the McCarthy lovers: I remember Kip Wells tearing s*** up at the end of one year... and well.. we know what ended up happening there. Every outfield prospect we have from now on will suck too because Borchard was a bust

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 11:15 AM) Slowly but surely this website is reaching "Kenny can do no wrong" mode. Its been like that for the entire offseason.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Dec 16, 2005 -> 05:25 PM) They are paying for a setup guy who's also a decent closer. Just in case Izzy gets hurt, they have Looper. That's what they are paying for. Howry and Eyre aren't closers. Those contracts are ridiculous. This one, while ridiculous, is more understandable. I wouldn't really say Looper is a decent closer. I would rather see Damaso Marte on the mound to close out a game than Looper, and thats saying something.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 08:18 AM) Question marks about a young guy that has 4 seasons of .500 or better baseball vs. a guy with a handful of starts. One is a question mark and one has "proven" it. Well, you are looking at record, which is team dependant. Look at Garland's other numbers. Last year, Garland had an ERA ~1.00 less than his career average, a WHIP .2 less than his career average, 30 less walks, 5 more strikeouts, 20 more innings, 2 more complete games, 3 more shutouts, etc. etc. All of that shouts one year wonder, and he'd have to do it again to prove to me that he's that great of a starter. Is he a good #4 or #5 guy? Yea, but right now, if we traded him, we could get something teams give up for a #1 or #2 guy. McCarthy was 21 last year in his first major league season (I guess you can call it a season, even though he only threw 67 innings). He had a rough first stint in the majors, but when he came back, he dominated the Rangers (in Texas IIRC) and the Red Sox (in Boston). He showed that he could dominate in the majors, and this was in his first major league starts. Yea, he hasn't proven anything, but if I'm going to trade someone out of this rotation, am I going to trade the second year starter who just showed that he could dominate, or am I going to trade the 5th year starter who has dominated one season, and been average the rest? Or would you rather see McCarthy's talent go to waste in the bullpen? Its a no brainer in my book.

QUOTE(Felix @ Dec 15, 2005 -> 03:27 PM) For the type of player Taveras is, he needs to put up a much higher OBP to be good, and considering the fact he sucked anywhere outside of Minute Maid Park, I wouldn't want to see him in Chicago. Said in the other Astros thread, and I'm sticking by it. Taveras is not that good a player.. we'll be better off with Anderson starting.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 17, 2005 -> 07:46 AM) Don't you win Championships with guys playing well and "at their all-time high"? Yes, but since Garland's performance is a question mark (to me at least), and since we have 6 starters, trading Garland, who is just as likely to go back to pre-2005 form as he is to repeat his 2005 performance, makes the most sense. Brandon McCarthy proved that he's a starter last year, and if he starts this year off in the bullpen, its a real shame.

My problem with doing this is that Garland's stock is at an all-time high right now. If he has a bad first half, we might not be able to get nearly as much as we can if we just trade him now. I'm not worried about stamina with the WBC.. I think its a silly thing to worry about.