McCarthy Traded to Texas

[Gregory Pratt]

I've read that he's thirty seven, not "over forty one" and 35-38 seems about right to me.

[fathom]

I don't agree. We improved, without much debate, at the following positions: Backup C, bullpen as a whole, backup CF and bench generally in terms of how we use them (Gload was a loss, but we now have the RIGHT bench personnel lined up). That leaves the highly debateable 5th starter slot. Even if you think B-Mac would be better in 2007 than Danks, we are still improved in a few spots and even or maybe down a bit in that one. So to say this team is somehow worse off, I just don't see it.

 

Who is this mysterious back-up we've acquired? And I hope no one is considering Danks for a starting spot with the big league team in 2007.

[Gregory Pratt]

And what makes you think this, when everyone in baseball recognizes that this simply isn't true?

 

A few years ago he was being interviewed -- I think it was in 2004 -- and he slipped and said he was thirty two when he arrived here even though he's initially claimed to be thirty.

[SoxHawk1980]

Blind faith in KW and his scouts?! I guess you missed what happened in 2005. And in sticking with guys like Uribe, Contreras, Loaiza, Thornton, Garland, Crede, etc. I believe in KW's judgement. I liked BMac. But the sox wouldn't move Bmac if they weren't damn sure of what they got in return. Guys lose their jobs over trades like this.

KW has definitely made some good trades in the past. Do you think he's made any bad ones?

 

If so, why do you have faith that every trade he makes must be a good one?

[Kalapse]

I've read that he's thirty seven, not "over forty one" and 35-38 seems about right to me.

He's listed at 35 so I'd say 35-38 is on the low side.

[NorthSideSox72]

That makes no sense. Now we only have 4 good SP's and no depth. By that I mean depth with guys who are ready to step in and pitch like at least mediocre major league pitchers. That is an obvious and significant downgrade.

No depth? We have more depth, not less. Without these moves, beyond B-Mac, the cupboard was bare. Its not anymore. No one stocks MLB starters - you have room for 5, maybe 6 if you stretch it and screw up someone's development like they did with B-Mac in 2006. But now we have an enviable, deep list of guys who are at, or close to, MLB quality SP level. That is an improvement, not a downgrade.

[SoxHawk1980]

I've read that he's thirty seven, not "over forty one" and 35-38 seems about right to me.

You've read? You've read where? Of course he says that he's 35. I live in New York and I have read extensively about Contreras. Back when the Yankees and the Red Sox were battling over signing him after his defection, the issue of his age was all over the sports news in New York. At the time (early offseason before the 2003 season), the consensus opinion was that he was that he was about 36. If that's true, that would mean that he turned 41 on December 6. And this was the Yankee-friendly media which was hyping the hell out of Contreras at the time.

[NorthSideSox72]

Who is this mysterious back-up we've acquired? And I hope no one is considering Danks for a starting spot with the big league team in 2007.

Not acquired - someone in-system. Terrero. Is he starting material? Probably not. But he can defend the position, which is what I am looking for right now. And the write-ups I have found indicate he has a strong arm and is a generally good defender, though has some issues to work through. Plus he has a bit of speed, and some power. Seems about ideal to me.

[Vance Law]

The 2007 major league team hasn't been improved.

 

...but I claim that the team ERA will be better in 07 than it was in 06. That's without your Garcias and your McCarthies. in other news, I claim Dye will have a year somewhere in between '05 and '06- a .295 ba 37 homers 100rbi, which is rather awesome.

 

Meanwhile, nobody knows what will happen. If they did they would have suggested putting McCarthy in the rotation instead of Buehrle in '06 (give him the year off). He would have been more successful than Mark was.

 

So everyone's definitive assertions about the year (which hasn't happened yet) that Garcia orMcCarthy or Floyd or Haeger or ______ will have are pretty silly.

[SoxHawk1980]

No depth? We have more depth, not less. Without these moves, beyond B-Mac, the cupboard was bare. Its not anymore. No one stocks MLB starters - you have room for 5, maybe 6 if you stretch it and screw up someone's development like they did with B-Mac in 2006. But now we have an enviable, deep list of guys who are at, or close to, MLB quality SP level. That is an improvement, not a downgrade.

In 2006, we had McCarthy as the #6 starter to step in if any SP went down. Now, who do we have? The losers in the #5 starter competition. NONE of these guys is major league ready. Actually, maybe Haeger is ready, but he's no Brandon McCarthy. These guys all have talent, but do you think they are ready to shine in their rookie season? How often does that happen? Even for pitchers who eventually become great, they rarely show that in their rookie season. This team has great pitching prospects for the future, but crappy pitching depth (as compared to 2006) for the present.

 

Can you imagine if Contreras goes on the DL and we have a rotation of:

 

Buehrle

Garland

Vazquez

Haeger

Floyd

 

*shudders*

 

Does that look like quality depth in 2007 to you?

 

Not acquired - someone in-system. Terrero. Is he starting material? Probably not. But he can defend the position, which is what I am looking for right now. And the write-ups I have found indicate he has a strong arm and is a generally good defender, though has some issues to work through. Plus he has a bit of speed, and some power. Seems about ideal to me.

Terrero as an upgrade? Please. He would be a downgrade for the bench. And yes, he was acquired by KW early in the offseason.

[fathom]

Not acquired - someone in-system. Terrero. Is he starting material? Probably not. But he can defend the position, which is what I am looking for right now. And the write-ups I have found indicate he has a strong arm and is a generally good defender, though has some issues to work through. Plus he has a bit of speed, and some power. Seems about ideal to me.

 

Again, I don't think this is who KW had in mind when it came to upgrading the big league team this offseason. With that in mind, I think we'll sign another outfielder in the next month.

[SoxHawk1980]

So everyone's definitive assertions about the year (which hasn't happened yet) that Garcia orMcCarthy or Floyd or Haeger or ______ will have are pretty silly.

Actually the definitive assertions are all opinions based on the available facts. I think that unless we are quoting specific facts, everyone is just analyzing and giving their opinions about these players and the 2007 team. I don't think we have to put "in my opinion" in front of every comment we make about every player and the 2007 team.

 

Again, I don't think this is who KW had in mind when it came to upgrading the big league team this offseason. With that in mind, I think we'll sign another outfielder in the next month.

I think you are right. And upgrading a couple of bench spots and making a couple of lateral moves in the bullpen simply isn't enough to get this team back to the playoffs. [in my opinion]

[NorthSideSox72]

In 2006, we had McCarthy as the #6 starter to step in if any SP went down. Now, who do we have? The losers in the #5 starter competition. NONE of these guys is major league ready. Actually, maybe Haeger is ready, but he's no Brandon McCarthy. These guys all have talent, but do you think they are ready to shine in their rookie season? How often does that happen? Even for pitchers who eventually become great, they rarely show that in their rookie season. This team has great pitching prospects for the future, but crappy pitching depth (as compared to 2006) for the present.

 

Can you imagine if Contreras goes on the DL and we have a rotation of:

 

Buehrle

Garland

Vazquez

Haeger

Floyd

 

*shudders*

 

Does that look like quality depth in 2007 to you?

No MLB staff in baseball would be 100% OK losing a starter, even if we kept all 6 of those guys around (which everyone realizes would never have happened anyway). But honestly, that rotation but with Danks instead of Floyd doesn't look awful, for a team who lost a starter to injury.

 

If you can't see that we have more depth in the pitching staff than we did, then there is not much point in discussing this further. You and I apparently have a different idea of what Depth is.

[iamshack]

I don't give a s*** how old Contreras is; his arm is still fine, and his work ethic is outstanding. He'll always be an injury risk, but he's a hell of a lot more of a sure thing than some other guys.

 

SoxHawk, do you believe that most baseball people would list us as contenders for the 07' season? Do you think the Tigers, Indians, Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, A's or Angels are writing us off right now? You continue to compare the 07' team against the 06' team, rather than with the other teams we actually are competing against. Surely you cannot say that any of these teams are head and shoulders above us talent-wise, can you? Are you claiming that because the 06' team did not win, the 07' team therefore cannot win? As I have said before, that is pure fallacy. It is illogical and silly.

[NorthSideSox72]

Again, I don't think this is who KW had in mind when it came to upgrading the big league team this offseason. With that in mind, I think we'll sign another outfielder in the next month.

That might be true. And maybe that makes the team even better. But I'd be OK with Terrero as the 5th bench spot, to cover CF every 7th game or so.

[SoxHawk1980]

If you can't see that we have more depth in the pitching staff than we did, then there is not much point in discussing this further. You and I apparently have a different idea of what Depth is.

Agreed. I think that depth is players ready to play well at the major league level. We had 6. Now we have 4.

[nitetrain8601]

Speaking of fallacies, I'll do my best to debunk this one. While some players will undoubtedly improve their performance over 2006, others have a good chance to decline. Jermaine Dye has never had a year anywhere near as good as 2006. And he's not exactly at the age where one can conclude that he's still improving. We should expect a significant drop off for Dye. Conteras is over 40 years old. Pitchers of that age are usually deteroriating. There is more reason to believe he'll be worse in 2007 than better. Guys like Garland and Vazquez pitched at about their career averages in 2006. I think that's about as good as they are. Many expect them to improve in 2007, but I don't think there's any good reason to expect that. I won't even get into why we shouldn't expect improvement from truly and persistently awful hitters like Pods and Uribe.

 

Show me a birth certificate showing Contreras is over 40. He might be older than what he has said he is, but until you could show evidence, then do not make assumptions. I do agree with the basis of the argument about falloffs, but I don't like Contreras as an example.

[NorthSideSox72]

Agreed. I think that depth is players ready to play well at the major league level. We had 6. Now we have 4.

So its just an on an off switch for you? Ready or not ready? No continuum there? Seems to me there is a scale.

[SoxHawk1980]

I don't give a s*** how old Contreras is; his arm is still fine, and his work ethic is outstanding. He'll always be an injury risk, but he's a hell of a lot more of a sure thing than some other guys.

Do the vast majority of pitchers over 40 get better or worse from year to year?

SoxHawk, do you believe that most baseball people would list us as contenders for the 07' season?

Yes

Do you think the Tigers, Indians, Twins, Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, A's or Angels are writing us off right now?

No

You continue to compare the 07' team against the 06' team, rather than with the other teams we actually are competing against. Surely you cannot say that any of these teams are head and shoulders above us talent-wise, can you?

We will again be competing against several AL teams to get into the playoffs. Most of those teams haven't gotten worse. The competition won't be softer in 2007. The Twins might be down a little. But if they can just avoid the horrible start, they could easily be just as good. The Tigers will again be very good. There might be some drop off by some players, but they did add a huge bat in Sheffield. And I (and most everyone else in baseball) thinks the Indians will be significantly better. So we will still be in the toughest division in baseball. I also think the Bosox, Yankees, Angels and A's will be very good. Texas has also improved.

 

WE needed to get better. We can't rely on enough other teams getting worse to allow us to backdoor into t he playoffs.

Are you claiming that because the 06' team did not win, the 07' team therefore cannot win? As I have said before, that is pure fallacy. It is illogical and silly.

I never said the 07 team cannot win. I'm saying that with a less talented overall team in 2007, it will be more difficult for us to contend than in 2006 (when we came in 3rd in our division).

 

So its just an on an off switch for you? Ready or not ready? No continuum there? Seems to me there is a scale.

There certainly is a continuum. I've looked at the performances of these young pitchers. Only Haeger and Phillips have ever pitched particularly well in AAA. None of the rest of them have. If you can't succeed in AAA, then I think it unlikely that you are ready for the majors. And from everything I've read about Phillips, he isn't exactly a top prospect (he isn't even on BA's new top 10 Sox prospect list). The rest look like they need more minor league experience and/or a big fix from Coop.

[Chisoxfn]

We're making the same exact mistake we made in the 2003 and 2004 years, when we thought we could just fill in (name pitcher) for the 5th starter position, and it would work out. Besides for adding Hall, we've done nothing to help our offense. We're putting a lot of hope into Thome, Dye, PK, and Crede staying healthy the whole season again (besides for Thome's little injuries). Also, even though we've added some guys to the bullpen, I don't think that's what KW had in mind when he said we were going to improve it this offseason. I think he thought he'd be able to get guys like Speier and Walker, but their contracts were a lot higher than he thought they'd be. All I know is that if I sit back and take off my White Sox goggles, we're not an improved team ON PAPER!.

You forget how terrible Duque was for most of the season in 05 . The fact of the matter is in 04/05 we didn't have 4 other studly starters around them. In addition, we sure as heck didn't have this caliber of prospects next to them.

 

This 07 team is better if the pitchers pitch up to there capabilities. If they don't, well than it'll be just like 06. However, I believe our team on paper was better than the production, thus I had no problem staying with a very similar team with the exceptions of finding a new OF, a RH bat off the bench that hits LHP (Hall), some more arms for the pen (albeit these guys aren't proven) and a backup catcher (Hall)

[iamshack]

SoxHawk,

How can you possibly tell me that the Twins did not get worse? Radke retired and Liriano is down with an injury. They will be relying on Carlos Silva, Scott Baker, Matt Garza, and Boof Bonser. They most certainly got worse.

[NorthSideSox72]

There certainly is a continuum. I've looked at the performances of these young pitchers. Only Haeger and Phillips have ever pitched particularly well in AAA. None of the rest of them have. If you can't succeed in AAA, then I think it unlikely that you are ready for the majors. And from everything I've read about Phillips, he isn't exactly a top prospect (he isn't even on BA's new top 10 Sox prospect list). The rest look like they need more minor league experience and/or a big fix from Coop.

I've had this debate with people here before. How much do the final, statistical results matter at each level in the minors? How much do peripherals and more focused stats matter? And how much do you rely on subjective scouting reports? There are people on this site all over that spectrum. Some feel the actual basic stats mean nothing, and its all in the scouting reports (these people, for example, would say Phillips is going nowhere). Others, the opposite - they see success as a skill in itself (these people feel Phillips can be an ML starter someday). Some focus on peripheral stats and other more narrow statistical analyses.

 

Danks pitched extremely well at AA (ERA 2.50), then struggled a lot at AAA, before finishing strong there too (Aug-Sep he had a 2.33 ERA). So, he seems to be able to succeed at the AAA level as well as others. Scouting reports and more subjective analyses put him as a very high-ceiling prospect. And narrow stats like K/BB ratios appear very good (53-16 in AA, 85-34 in AAA). So, in all three areas, Danks seems strong. Would he succeed in 2007 as a starter on the Sox? I think he has as good a chance as B-Mac does.

[SoxHawk1980]

You forget how terrible Duque was for most of the season in 05 . The fact of the matter is in 04/05 we didn't have 4 other studly starters around them. In addition, we sure as heck didn't have this caliber of prospects next to them.

In 2005, Hernandez and McCarthy combined for an ERA of 4.74. I don't think the combination of guys who will be our 5th starter next year will be able to manage that. I doubt they will combine for an ERA under 5. Lots of talent there, but not ready to be good in the majors yet.

 

 

 

SoxHawk,

How can you possibly tell me that the Twins did not get worse? Radke retired and Liriano is down with an injury. They will be relying on Carlos Silva, Scott Baker, Matt Garza, and Boof Bonser. They most certainly got worse.

Actually, I said that "I think they might be down a little." We've written off the Twins in the past and they just keep reloading and coming back year after year. They have great prospects coming up and they have had great success with selecting and developing their pitching prospects. Plus they have some good young position players who are still on the uphill sides of their careers. The Twins could fall off a lot. Or they could avoid an early slump and be nearly as good next year. I'm just not writing them off. They are always in contention, even when people say they shouldn't be.

[Chisoxfn]

In 2005, Hernandez and McCarthy combined for an ERA of 4.74. I don't think the combination of guys who will be our 5th starter next year will be able to manage that. I doubt they will combine for an ERA under 5. Lots of talent there, but not ready to be good in the majors yet.

Actually, I said that "I think they might be down a little." We've written off the Twins in the past and they just keep reloading and coming back year after year. They have great prospects coming up and they have had great success with selecting and developing their pitching prospects. Plus they have some good young position players who are still on the uphill sides of their careers. The Twins could fall off a lot. Or they could avoid an early slump and be nearly as good next year. I'm just not writing them off. They are always in contention, even when people say they shouldn't be.

So they can just reload, but its impossible for the Sox too? They have to find and fill a couple spots, while some of there already filled spots are also considered question-marks (imo) yet the Sox who have one spot to fill (while the other 4, when on are some of the better pitchers in all of baseball in addition to being relatively proven commodities) and we have a gripload of arms to go with.

 

And if none of them pan out quickly, we have the talent and cash to jump on a quick deal to fix the hole (if it needs to be). The only thing I'd like to see us do is find a way to get an extra bat which would help give the club a little time while the 5th starter develops and some of our younger relievers develop.

[iamshack]

So they can just reload, but its impossible for the Sox too? They have to find and fill a couple spots, while some of there already filled spots are also considered question-marks (imo) yet the Sox who have one spot to fill (while the other 4, when on are some of the better pitchers in all of baseball in addition to being relatively proven commodities) and we have a gripload of arms to go with.

 

And if none of them pan out quickly, we have the talent and cash to jump on a quick deal to fix the hole (if it needs to be). The only thing I'd like to see us do is find a way to get an extra bat which would help give the club a little time while the 5th starter develops and some of our younger relievers develop.

 

Exactly. The Twins are given a pass because of what they have done in the past (honestly, what does that have anything to do with the players they have now?), yet, the White Sox could not possibly come up with an adequate 5th starter because of what has happened in the past (and what does Dan Wright, Arnie Munoz, et al., have to do with Floyd, Danks, Haegar, et al.?). This just makes no sense.

 

I wouldn't say the Twins could be "down a bit." I would say the White Sox might be "down a bit." The Twins have major issues; we do not.