tile says it all.

You just created a mess of a thread.

BUT HE WALKED A BATTER IN HIS LAST OUTING!!! NOT GOOD ENOUGH COTTS!!!!

In the last 10 GAMES, not days, Cotts has gotten this for work:

 

1.2 IP, 3 H, 1 R, 1 ER, 0 BB, 3 K

 

Hard to be a long reliever when we haven't had a need for long relief I guess.

 

Also, in case people wanted to start "I HATE COTTS" crap, I figured I'd list his stats for you to ponder.

 

YEAR  G GS IP   H R HR BB SO K/9  W L Hld Sv BS BAA WHIP  ERA 
2005 18 0 16.0 13 7  0  8 15 8.44 1 0  2  0  0 .213 1.31 3.38

 

For a reliever, his WHIP sucks, no arguing that...but he hasn't been THAT bad...and since he is signed for $330,000 this year, I see a decent bargain.

Maybe he can be the third set-up guy that we so desperately need.

Maybe he can be the third set-up guy that we so desperately need.

Oh boy, we're really opening ourselves up here for the Cotts "Haters".

When Neal has gotten work he has been solid. Nothing great or special, but solid. I haven't looked at it, but it sure seems to me like at least most of his wild outings have come after long layoffs.

Oh boy, we're really opening ourselves up here for the Cotts "Haters". 

 

Maybe so, but man, we need another strong bullpen presence other than Marte, Politte, and Hermanson, particularly since Marte has been flagging a bit lately (although his stuff has been fine, he's had some bad luck. Hopefully this doesn't affect his confidence).

The most promising thing about Cotts last night is that he got the job done in a tight game. Cotts has been fine in garbage time, and shaky (to say the least) in most close games he's come in. His stats are surprisingly decent (except for his BB's), and I guess it's also a good sign that last night with Garcia leaving in the 6th, that's the equivalent of a long relief situation given most of our starting pitching so far.

Career ERA is still over 5.50.

 

Get back to me when he puts together a consistent effort for a while rather than a few good games.

He was pretty good last night, but he better buy Uribe dinner or somethin cause he helped him out a great deal.

Career ERA is still over 5.50.

 

Get back to me when he puts together a consistent effort  for a while rather than a few good games.

he still needs to learn another pitch.

Career ERA is still over 5.50.

 

Get back to me when he puts together a consistent effort  for a while rather than a few good games.

 

Is this the "career" that consists of a total of 78.2 IP before this year? 5 total games started in this "career". I don't really see how 60 games prior to the 2005 season is enough to gage Cotts entire worthiness on.

Is this the "career" that consists of a total of 78.2 IP before this year? 5 total games started in this "career". I don't really see how 60 games prior to the 2005 season is enough to gage Cotts entire worthiness on.

Take out the games Cotts has started. What would his career ERA be FWIW?

I'm not a big fan of Cotts, but I'll give him his credit when it's due. He's been solid recently and I think he's a perfect mop-up guy.

When Neal has gotten work he has been solid.  Nothing great or special, but solid.  I haven't looked at it, but it sure seems to me like at least most of his wild outings have come after long layoffs.

 

exactly my thinking on cotts. he's solid when he gets regular work. dunno why ppl hate him so much. he does have control issues but even a-rod has said he has the sneakiest fastball in the league, good tool to have. overall numbers are solid. if ozzie would stop overworking the starters when its not necessary (such as buerhle monday, trying to get him a CG, when he pitched 9 innings just last week against the same team), guys like him would be sharper. hermanson hasn't pitched in like a week, and b4 monday, marte hadn't pitched in like 5 days. ozzie needs to keep the bullpen sharp, only way to do that is getting em some regular work.

 

i'm out

Edited June 1, 200520 yr by thelatinoheat_30

i'm out

I didn't know Jim Rome posted at Sox Talk.

Take out the games Cotts has started. What would his career ERA be FWIW?

It'd still be well over 4 I'm fairly certain of that.

 

And for a reliever with s***ty control, that sucks.

It'd still be well over 4 I'm fairly certain of that.

 

And for a reliever with s***ty control, that sucks.

his control issues and his limited pitch selection make me worry the more hitters she him.

 

On a positive note, I have never seen someone dominate so much as he did in the all start futures game in 2002

his control issues and his limited pitch selection make me worry the more hitters she him. 

 

On a positive note, I have never seen someone dominate so much as he did in the all start futures game in 2002

Didn't he give up a run?

 

I think he gave up 2 hits and a run in the first inning.

Didn't he give up a run?

 

I think he gave up 2 hits and a run in the first inning.

sorry, it was 2003, he looked as dominant as his line up until the game 8-3 with a 1.97 ERA and 99 k's

By the way, just FYI for all of the Cotts apologists:

 

Numbers as a reliever:

 

 

Innings worked: 79 and 2/3

Earned Runs: 43

ERA: 4.86

Walks: 38

Homers: 11

K: 72

 

By the way, just FYI for all of the Cotts apologists:

 

Numbers as a reliever:

 

 

Innings worked: 79 and 2/3

Earned Runs: 43

ERA: 4.86

Walks: 38

Homers: 11

K: 72

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

By the way, just FYI for all of the Cotts apologists:

 

Numbers as a reliever:

 

 

Innings worked: 79 and 2/3

Earned Runs: 43

ERA: 4.86

Walks: 38

Homers: 11

K: 72

 

 

Come on Alex, you should know better than to judge a guy based on 80 innings of work. Go back and pull up Greg Maddux's, or Randy Johnson's or Curt Schilling's first 80 innings and tell me what you see. I am not saying Neal will be a superstar, but that is a pretty short sighted bar you are using to deterimine a guys career.