C.Rector Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Why does Danny Wright get to be 5th starter over either Neal Cotts or Felix Diaz? Cotts or Diaz each has a decent chance to contribute to the team's success while Wright has a good chance to embarrass himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulokis Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 I dont mind Diaz to get a shot. Rauch I think can step up. Cotts' experience in the bullpen this year will serve him well whenever he steps in into the rotation. Wright should just stay in the bullpen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Why does Danny Wright get to be 5th starter over either Neal Cotts or Felix Diaz? Cotts or Diaz each has a decent chance to contribute to the team's success while Wright has a good chance to embarrass himself. First of all, Cotts is contributing, big time. In the bullpen. Seeing as this is May 1st it is highly unlikely he will be stretched out enough to be considered as a starter in 2004. That's common sense for anyone with credible knowledge of pitching. Second, while I'm no huge fan of Dan Wright, he won the job in spring training. Isn't it reasonable to give a guy 7-8 starts to see if he can get consistent results, particularly since he once won 14 games as a starter? It is counterproductive to yank guys from the starting rotation after 3-4 starts, which is what you want them to do. It does nothing for the team's confidence level, let alone the individual. Third, with Diaz, he is doing very well and is earning the chance for a call up. It's a long seaon. Most teams need 15 or so pitchers through the course of a year. Diaz has never been known for consistency of performance as a starter either. While I'm encouraged, let him get on a big-time roll for 7-8 starts or more. Wright has not been that bad that he warrants a demotion, especially on May 1st. Lastly, what is this really about? It's my opinion this is you advancing your personal agenda against Ozzie Guillen yet again. You consistenly jump on every single perceived misstep, labeling him as a "buffoon", lacking culture, etc. Yet, when he does something right, you're nowhere to be found. I can't wait until the next mediocre Mark Buehrle outing, I'm sure you'll be right here trumpeting his decline and fall. Yet, if he has a good outing, it's the Sounds of Silence from you. Stick to taking pot shots at the good people who run this board, it seems that's what you do best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggliopipe Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Cotts could easily be stretched out to a starter this season. It generally only takes a few weeks. I think last year Escobar up in Toronto came out of the pen for April and half of May and then was moved into the rotation. His first few starts, they only let him pitch maybe 4-5 innings, but he still finished the season with 26 starts and 180 innings. That said, I'd like Cotts to stay in the pen. Give Wright another couple starts (I can't see him getting pulled from the rotation this soon) and then give Rauch or Diaz a shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxfest Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 DW not long for this team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CWSGuy406 Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 At least it's good to know we have three possible replacements for Danny Wright, if it got that far that we needed another fifth starter. Cotts, Diaz, Rauch. One of them is bound to do at least a little better than Wright, right? RIGHT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Cotts could easily be stretched out to a starter this season. It generally only takes a few weeks. I think last year Escobar up in Toronto came out of the pen for April and half of May and then was moved into the rotation. His first few starts, they only let him pitch maybe 4-5 innings, but he still finished the season with 26 starts and 180 innings. That said, I'd like Cotts to stay in the pen. Give Wright another couple starts (I can't see him getting pulled from the rotation this soon) and then give Rauch or Diaz a shot. I'm not so sure they'd want to do that with a young guy like Cotts, and like you point out, he's doing a fine job in the pen. Escobar is much more experienced and if I'm not mistaken had bounced in and out of a starters role in his career. Anything is possible, of course. Diaz and Rauch appear to be Plan B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Or is it the Great Mystery of Trolls? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Or is it the Great Mystery of Trolls? Mike, check out the link on Crectors sig. It is hilarious! He is talking to himself over there, witness this brilliant piece of writing: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On one of the Sox fan forums, there is a thread about the state of the Sox bullpen that begins with the following post: “Yeah they’re ERA is low but it seems like every inherited runner this year has scored. Like the two just now the Politte inherited.” Now, this is not exactly the most grammatically correct sentence ever written, but its author does have a legitimate point here. This year’s White Sox bullpen does have a certain proclivity to let inherited runners score. That being the case, it appears to be a pretty innocous post. However, the post did in fact spark a lengthy discussion much of which concerned matters outside of the bullpen. There were a few posters who did not like the premise of the original post including one who opined that it was, “Trollery at is reachingist,” without giving any reasons why this is the case. This comment is significant because the person who made it is a moderator. If it were not for the fact that this particular forum has multiple moderators who do not excise threads/ban posters unless there is a consensus amongst the moderators to do so. This particular moderator has a distinct tendency to accuse posters of being trolls whenever a thread becomes (a) lengthy, (B) heated or © just plain controversial. He seems to believe that if a post/thread sparks serious discussion, then there could only have been ulterior motives behind its being posted in the first place. He has also made it clear that if he had the supreme moderating power, several of the posters at this particular forum, including this writer, would be banned. Due to the fact that his allegations have hurt the feelings of some folks, this forum has lost some of its previously active posters who have left for more hospitable climes. This particular moderator’s logic is quite reminiscent to that of the detractors of President Bush in the days and weeks after 9/11 who called up various and sundry radio talk shows alleging that Bush knew that if a major terrorist attack happened in America, his popularity would go up. Therefore, according to these critics, the fact that 9/11 occurred proved that Bush knew all along about the 9/11 plot and refused to do anything to stop it. Talk about weird stuff. Having said that, I’vedecided to post to that forum asking the moderator just why that post/thread is an example of “trollery.” Of course, his response will probably be along the lines of saying that its interesting that a troll like you would defend another troll. It does raise the question of whether moderators can be trolls too and my answer to that is yes. Comments (0) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike, now that is very complimentary, you are being compared to the President of the United States!!! (love him or hate him aside). Then, read further how he is increasingly reluctant to post on boards like this because, well, no one is quite as smart as he is. LOL!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JimH Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Even better, he places a link to a forum where he talks to himself, and most of his rants are trashing SoxTalk, moderators, those who don't like his articles, and so on. LOL, Chuckles. That's called crapping in your own bird cage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Yawn. The guy has an agenda. Surprise. Glad to see Soxtalk is important enough to use to try to drum up viewers for his other site. Think about it, if this sight is sooo bad, and the mods are soooo unfair, why would you continue to post here? Even better, why would you only continue to post negative things known to stir controversy, while providing a convient link to a site he mods. If his agenda was anymore obvious HE would be George Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Anybody who thinks this is Oz's decision alone is wrong. I agree that Wright won it in spring training, the team is not off to any Royals-like start, so might as well let him have 10 starts or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 I agree Danny should remain in the rotation for a while since he won the job in spring training. You are right. It would send a bad message to panic especially with our team off to a non-Royals like start. It's not like we're 7-15. We are doing OK. It's not all Oz's decision anyway. He's not the only guy running the show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted May 1, 2004 Share Posted May 1, 2004 Oops sorry about the double post. I thought my first post didn't post. Mea culpa. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.