May 6, 200421 yr With Buehrle not pitching well this year and Loaiza struggling despite getting wins who is our ace? Schoeneweis has the best ERA among our starters with Loaiza 2nd and Garland right behind him. I personally see Garland become very reliable, but Loaiza is still pitching pretty well. Who is our ace? It sure as hell isn't Buehrle.
May 6, 200421 yr No one, which is why I firmly believe at one point or another the Sox will have to move Lee, Konerko or JOse for a good starter and I think Carlos is the only one that will get us that type of starter in return. On the plus side, Carlos salary will also negate whatever the Sox get in return which would make a deal pretty likely. Garcia, Odalis Perez are the tops on my list. I could see Benson, but Benson still has all those health issues and frankly I wouldn't take the shot at giving up Lee for him, unless the Sox get someone else effective in return.
May 6, 200421 yr Danny Wright, obviously I dunno, I don't think we have one. Loaiza was it last year, he could easily be it again.
May 6, 200421 yr Garcia, Odalis Perez are the tops on my list. I could see Benson, but Benson still has all those health issues and frankly I wouldn't take the shot at giving up Lee for him, unless the Sox get someone else effective in return. The M's and Pirates don't want high priced players, they want cheap guys. You better than anyone knows how McCourt operates, you think he'll want 8 million dollars in Konerko or Lee?
May 6, 200421 yr I do think McCourt would take it and good luck to the Pirates, no one will pick up Bensons salary cause I don't think any of the big bidding teams are going to look into acquiring him, which means someone will have to take on a contract in return, imo. McCourt would take it because I honestly believe they want to dump Perez, even though he is pitching good. I still hear a lot of talk of him being the one shipped out.
May 6, 200421 yr I do think McCourt would take it and good luck to the Pirates, no one will pick up Bensons salary cause I don't think any of the big bidding teams are going to look into acquiring him, which means someone will have to take on a contract in return, imo. McCourt would take it because I honestly believe they want to dump Perez, even though he is pitching good. I still hear a lot of talk of him being the one shipped out. With the Bucs and Benson, never count out the Yankees or Boston, they'll add someone. I think Konerko if anyone would be moved, Williams has always liked Lee. And the Konerko to LA thing isn't going to happen. Garcia is the best option.
May 6, 200421 yr I agree, I'd like Garcia. He makse good money but the guys the Sox would give up would too. Seems like a fair swap too and Garcia isn't like any other pitcher we have in our rotation.
May 6, 200421 yr Well hopefully KW is watching how the starting pitching is struggling of late and is thinking of trading for a legit starter over anything else.
May 6, 200421 yr With Buehrle not pitching well this year and Loaiza struggling despite getting wins who is our ace? Schoeneweis has the best ERA among our starters with Loaiza 2nd and Garland right behind him. I personally see Garland become very reliable, but Loaiza is still pitching pretty well. Who is our ace? It sure as hell isn't Buehrle. That's the point -- Sox don't have one. Not even close. Ace at the ASB is an absolute must. You need a stud to take the ball in Game 1 and Game 4 against Pedro/Shilling/Vasquez/Brown. And no, Perez and Garcia aren't exactly who I had in mind. Think Hudson. Think Unit. Think Halladay. Think Shmidt (if healthy).
May 6, 200421 yr Well hopefully KW is watching how the starting pitching is struggling of late and is thinking of trading for a legit starter over anything else. Kenny has a plan. He might not be the most likeable guy in the world, but he has a pulse on this team, and it working on something. Hopefully this team stays in it, and he gets a chance to pull the trigger.
May 6, 200421 yr Every team has to have their ace.......Our's is probably Loaiza I disagree, every team has a #1 starter but not necessarily an ace.
May 6, 200421 yr I disagree, every team has a #1 starter but not necessarily an ace. Ace, #1 starter, same thing
May 6, 200421 yr Not really Yes!! Ace of the team=Our best pitcher. #1 starter of the team=Out best pitcher. Just saying ..
May 6, 200421 yr Not really Right. A number one starter is a guy whom is the best pitcher on you're staff. An "ace" is a guy whom 8 times out of 10, you score 2-3 runs for and the game is over.
May 6, 200421 yr Begood, Mike Maroth was the #1 pitcher in Detroit last season -- Does that make him an ace? NO -- He lost 20 games --
May 6, 200421 yr Begood, Mike Maroth was the #1 pitcher in Detroit last season -- Does that make him an ace? NO -- He lost 20 games -- It makes him the ace of his team!!!!
May 6, 200421 yr Yes!! Ace of the team=Our best pitcher. #1 starter of the team=Out best pitcher. Just sayin... #1 Starter is the guy that is at the top of a rotation. An ace is a guy that goes out there every game and has a chance to dominate and completely shut another team down. He will take the team on his back and carry them. That is the difference between an Ace and a #1. Guys like Pedro in his prime, Unit in his Prime, Halladay, Hudson, Rocket....Those guys are aces.
May 6, 200421 yr Author It's very debatable whether Hudson is an ace, for the simple reason that Mulder and Zito are arguably better, lol.
May 6, 200421 yr It's very debatable whether Hudson is an ace, for the simple reason that Mulder and Zito are arguably better, lol. Zito SEASON TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO 2000 Oakland Athletics 7 4 2.72 14 14 1 1 0 0 92.2 64 30 28 6 2 45 78 2001 Oakland Athletics 17 8 3.49 35 35 3 2 0 0 214.1 184 92 83 18 13 80 205 2002 Oakland Athletics 23 5 2.75 35 35 1 0 0 0 229.1 182 79 70 24 9 78 182 2003 Oakland Athletics 14 12 3.30 35 35 4 1 0 0 231.2 186 98 85 19 6 88 146 2004 Oakland Athletics 2 3 6.83 5 5 0 0 0 0 29.0 40 24 22 6 3 10 23 Career Totals 63 32 3.25 124 124 9 4 0 0 797.0 656 323 288 73 33 301 634 Mulder SEASON TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO 2000 Oakland Athletics 9 10 5.44 27 27 0 0 0 0 154.0 191 106 93 22 4 69 88 2001 Oakland Athletics 21 8 3.45 34 34 6 4 0 0 229.1 214 92 88 16 5 51 153 2002 Oakland Athletics 19 7 3.47 30 30 2 1 0 0 207.1 182 88 80 21 11 55 159 2003 Oakland Athletics 15 9 3.13 26 26 9 2 0 0 186.2 180 66 65 15 2 40 128 2004 Oakland Athletics 2 2 4.12 6 6 0 0 0 0 39.1 41 20 18 3 1 12 28 Career Totals 66 36 3.79 123 123 17 7 0 0 816.2 808 372 344 77 23 227 556 Hudson SEASON TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO 1999 Oakland Athletics 11 2 3.23 21 21 1 0 0 0 136.1 121 56 49 8 4 62 132 2000 Oakland Athletics 20 6 4.14 32 32 2 2 0 0 202.1 169 100 93 24 7 82 169 2001 Oakland Athletics 18 9 3.37 35 35 3 0 0 0 235.0 216 100 88 20 6 71 181 2002 Oakland Athletics 15 9 2.98 34 34 4 2 0 0 238.1 237 87 79 19 8 62 152 2003 Oakland Athletics 16 7 2.70 34 34 3 2 0 0 240.0 197 84 72 15 10 61 162 2004 Oakland Athletics 3 1 3.53 6 6 1 0 0 0 43.1 38 19 17 2 4 8 22 Career Totals 83 34 3.27 162 162 14 6 0 0 1095.1 978 446 398 88 39 346 818 By those stats, I don't really think you can say that they are both much better than Hudson. They are all pretty much equal if anything.
May 6, 200421 yr Zito SEASON TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO 2000 Oakland Athletics 7 4 2.72 14 14 1 1 0 0 92.2 64 30 28 6 2 45 78 2001 Oakland Athletics 17 8 3.49 35 35 3 2 0 0 214.1 184 92 83 18 13 80 205 2002 Oakland Athletics 23 5 2.75 35 35 1 0 0 0 229.1 182 79 70 24 9 78 182 2003 Oakland Athletics 14 12 3.30 35 35 4 1 0 0 231.2 186 98 85 19 6 88 146 2004 Oakland Athletics 2 3 6.83 5 5 0 0 0 0 29.0 40 24 22 6 3 10 23 Career Totals 63 32 3.25 124 124 9 4 0 0 797.0 656 323 288 73 33 301 634 Mulder SEASON TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO 2000 Oakland Athletics 9 10 5.44 27 27 0 0 0 0 154.0 191 106 93 22 4 69 88 2001 Oakland Athletics 21 8 3.45 34 34 6 4 0 0 229.1 214 92 88 16 5 51 153 2002 Oakland Athletics 19 7 3.47 30 30 2 1 0 0 207.1 182 88 80 21 11 55 159 2003 Oakland Athletics 15 9 3.13 26 26 9 2 0 0 186.2 180 66 65 15 2 40 128 2004 Oakland Athletics 2 2 4.12 6 6 0 0 0 0 39.1 41 20 18 3 1 12 28 Career Totals 66 36 3.79 123 123 17 7 0 0 816.2 808 372 344 77 23 227 556 Hudson SEASON TEAM W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV SVO IP H R ER HR HBP BB SO 1999 Oakland Athletics 11 2 3.23 21 21 1 0 0 0 136.1 121 56 49 8 4 62 132 2000 Oakland Athletics 20 6 4.14 32 32 2 2 0 0 202.1 169 100 93 24 7 82 169 2001 Oakland Athletics 18 9 3.37 35 35 3 0 0 0 235.0 216 100 88 20 6 71 181 2002 Oakland Athletics 15 9 2.98 34 34 4 2 0 0 238.1 237 87 79 19 8 62 152 2003 Oakland Athletics 16 7 2.70 34 34 3 2 0 0 240.0 197 84 72 15 10 61 162 2004 Oakland Athletics 3 1 3.53 6 6 1 0 0 0 43.1 38 19 17 2 4 8 22 Career Totals 83 34 3.27 162 162 14 6 0 0 1095.1 978 446 398 88 39 346 818 By those stats, I don't really think you can say that they are both much better than Hudson. They are all pretty much equal if anything. Obviously, in 2002 and 2003, Hudson has been their ace. However, I haven't looked at their playoff performances or splits against the top teams in AL....so I am not sure which one of the trio fares better in October -- which is basically what the Sox need them for..
May 6, 200421 yr Yeah, I haven't had a chance to check those splits either. That is an important thing to analyze when comparing the three. I will have to check that out.
May 6, 200421 yr Ace, #1 starter, same thing No it's not. Personally, I though Bartolo Colon was our ace last year, and Esteban Loaiza was our #1 pitcher. An ace is a horse - a guy who will give you 230 very good and sometimes overpowering innings. There are an elite few who are 'aces.' And really, these aces are hard to find using stats. You have to really watch the games and figure out who the ace is. Let's break this down just a little, looking at the word 'ace' and it's definition. To me, without looking it up, 'ace' means the best possible, the best you can get, not the best you HAVE. In baseball, the best you can get, or the 'ace', is the best pitchers in the league(RJ, Hudson, Mulder, etc, etc, etc). In cards, the ace is usually the best card you can get. So say you're playing poker and you ahve a pair of queens...are those queens aces? And to answer my own question, no they're not(and while that comparison is a little corny, I think it gets the job done). An ace being your #1 starter is not always true, just like how your best hitter is not always your 3rd hitter. And your #1 starter is not necessarily your ace, just like how your 3rd hitter is not necessarily your best hitter. And you don't necessarily have an ace, just like how you don't necessarily have a very good hitter(though those are much easier to find then aces). That being said...we have NO ace right now. We have 4 solid starters. That's all the more you can say.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.