Absolutely but some people are calling him a good SP or better, when all he is to me is a question mark.

But then again Buerhle was as awful the second half of 2006 as Willis was at anytime during 2007, and I'm sure everyone is happy the White Sox gave him $56 million.

 

The thing about Willis is even if his ERA is 5.00, he's going to give you 200 innings and that will save your bullpen especially if he's a #5 starter. The White Sox right now have to count on Floyd and Danks to pick up a ton of innings Garland ate up. It will take its toll on the bullpen if they can't show they can pitch a lot more efficiently in 2008.

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by Dick Allen

Willis is an upgrade for Detroit. That's the bottom line.

I'm just going to say three more things, and then leave this thread to the soothsayers...

 

1. The Sox made one deal in the winter meetings - and it helped the club.

 

2. Do any of you own a calendar?

 

3. If the Opening Day roster looks like it does right now, then I'll be right there saying this is, at best, a 3rd place-caliber team in the ALC, and maybe worse.

 

Thank you. You are a sane poster. That's nice to see.

Thank you. You are a sane poster. That's nice to see.

Cause its his birthday that old s***

But then again Buerhle was as awful the second half of 2006 as Willis was at anytime during 2007, and I'm sure everyone is happy the White Sox gave him $56 million.

 

The thing about Willis is even if his ERA is 5.00, he's going to give you 200 innings and that will save your bullpen especially if he's a #5 starter. The White Sox right now have to count on Floyd and Danks to pick up a ton of innings Garland ate up. It will take its toll on the bullpen if they can't show they can pitch a lot more efficiently in 2008.

I'd still rather have our rotation than theirs. Contreras might have as much potential to turn it around as Willis does, depending on what is wrong with willis. They only had one person pitch 200 innings last year. Now they might have two in Willis. Kenny Rogers might be done for. Robertson has been crap every year but one in his career. The rookie might pitch well, if he does, chances are he will still have plenty of rough outings. I don't know why everyone thinks they are some kind of powerhouse thats a lock for the playoffs. They have a ton of question marks in their pitching staff.

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by max power

He could be a marketing boon as well..."D-train" with the Gothic "D", not to mention his great personality. Not bad for Motown.

I'd still rather have our rotation than theirs. Contreras might have as much potential to turn it around as Willis does, depending on what is wrong with willis. They only had one person pitch 200 innings last year. Now they might have two in Willis. Kenny Rogers might be done for. Robertson has been crap every year but one in his career. The rookie might pitch well, if he does, chances are he will still have plenty of rough outings. I don't know why everyone thinks they are some kind of powerhouse thats a lock for the playoffs. They have a ton of question marks in their pitching staff.

 

1. Curtis Granderson

2. Carlos Guillen

3. Miguel Cabrera

4. Magglio Ordonez

5. Gary Sheffield

6. Edgar Renteria

7. Placido Polanco

8. Ivan Rodriguez

9. Jacque Jones

1. Curtis Granderson

2. Carlos Guillen

3. Miguel Cabrera

4. Magglio Ordonez

5. Gary Sheffield

6. Edgar Renteria

7. Placido Polanco

8. Ivan Rodriguez

9. Jacque Jones

I'd swap Guillen and Renteria, but yeah, thats nasty. I'd like ours to look like this:

 

1. Roberts 2B

2. Cab SS

3. Thome DH

4. Kong 1B

5. Dye RF

6. Fuk CF

7. Fields 3B

8. AJP C

9. Quentin LF

1. Curtis Granderson

2. Carlos Guillen

3. Miguel Cabrera

4. Magglio Ordonez

5. Gary Sheffield

6. Edgar Renteria

7. Placido Polanco

8. Ivan Rodriguez

9. Jacque Jones

Yeah they have a great line up. So a great lineup and a questionable pitching staff is all you need to be a lock for the playoffs? I'm not drinking detroit's kool aid.

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by max power

So if missing out on big players was the standard for being the biggest losers at the winter meetings, why weren't Anaheim, the Yankees, the Red Sox, and Cleveland on this list after missing out on Cabrera, Santana, Santana, and Bay respectively?

Because their GM's didn't come out to the presses talking about catching a "big fish" or sending text messages to free agents that said "you're next."

Us not getting Hunter for that contract was such an overall win for the White Sox its not even funny.

 

 

Just so I understand,

 

Are people b****ing Kenny didnt sign Hunter to the 90mil contract?

 

Or are they b****ing that Kenny didnt get Hunter to sign a cheaper contract that would have been worthwhile?

 

Because if the Sox signed Hunter for 90mil it would have been a disaster. For some reason I just dont see Hunter being able to stay healthy the majority of the next 5 years.

 

Some of the few intelligent comments in this thread

 

Cause its his birthday that old s***

It ain't the years, Rock.

 

Yeah they have a great line up. So a great lineup and a questionable pitching staff is all you need to be a lock for the playoffs? I'm not drinking detroit's kool aid.

 

It's worked for NY for how many years?

Didn't 27 other teams fail to get MCab and Hunter?

 

27 other teams didn't have delusions of grander that they were moral locks to get them for one reason or the other. You put all your eggs in 1 basket....you lose.

It's a stupid column to write about. The Winter meetings didn't take into account the sox getting Orlando Cabrera and signing Linebrink. The only thing the sox did was acquire Quentin. A better measure of how the sox [or any team] will improve from 2007 to 2008 is in the entire offseason. BTW--wasn't Hunter signed before the meetings began?

Yeah they have a great line up. So a great lineup and a questionable pitching staff is all you need to be a lock for the playoffs? I'm not drinking detroit's kool aid.

 

Verlander, Bonderman, Kenny "the cheat" Rogers, Nate Robertson and D-train Willis is a questionable staff? Hardly as questionable as one with Jose Contreras, Gavin Floyd and Jon Danks in it. You have to admit that. I wouldn't say they have a better staff than Cleveland, but certainly better than ours (at the moment).

 

I'm not about to award the AL Central to the Tigers just yet. They have to go out and earn it. I'm sure many of us thought the Bears were locks to win the NFC North too...how's that panning out?

Verlander, Bonderman, Kenny "the cheat" Rogers, Nate Robertson and D-train Willis is a questionable staff? Hardly as questionable as one with Jose Contreras, Gavin Floyd and Jon Danks in it. You have to admit that. I wouldn't say they have a better staff than Cleveland, but certainly better than ours (at the moment).

 

Well our starters last year put up an ERA of 4.47 and we play our home games U.S. Cellular.

Theirs put up an ERA of 4.68 and the more spacious Tiger Stadium is their home. They've got some injury and performance questions (did you see what Dontrelle put up.......in the NL last year?), we've got some performance questions. We'll have to see how it plays out. Anyone who pretends to be certain one way or the other (about which will have the better rotation) is doing that annoying thing where the pretend like they "know" what's going to happen, when they obviously do not and can't.

 

27 other teams didn't have delusions of grander that they were moral locks to get them for one reason or the other. You put all your eggs in 1 basket....you lose.

 

This made me think of some video retrospective that needs to be put together of Erstad's time with the Sox, to be titled, "Delusions of Grinder."

 

But then again Buerhle was as awful the second half of 2006 as Willis was at anytime during 2007, and I'm sure everyone is happy the White Sox gave him $56 million.

 

The thing about Willis is even if his ERA is 5.00, he's going to give you 200 innings and that will save your bullpen especially if he's a #5 starter. The White Sox right now have to count on Floyd and Danks to pick up a ton of innings Garland ate up. It will take its toll on the bullpen if they can't show they can pitch a lot more efficiently in 2008.

 

200 innings of what? I'm sure a few of our guys could give us 200 innings as well. Just depends on how effective you want those to be. At this point, I'm not sure if Dontrelle giving them 200 innings would be a good thing or a bad thing for them....

I just think there are a lot of people who flatly refuse to ever consider the White Sox "losers" in any sense of the term unless it's absolutely literal

 

As opposed to those who do no matter what...

 

Too bad Willis had a far better career record. Gimmicky or not, I'll take outs.

 

Wait, are you telling me that a pitcher is rated by wins? ALL HAIL JON GARLAND!!!!

It's worked for NY for how many years?

It hasn't worked in 7 years. Furthermore, when they did win, their pitching played a huge role.

Edited December 9, 200718 yr by max power

Wait, are you telling me that a pitcher is rated by wins? ALL HAIL JON GARLAND!!!!

Garland is a much better pitcher than Willis imo. I wouldn't even have to think twice on who I'd rather have.

It hasn't worked in 7 years. Furthermore, when they did win, their pitching played a huge role.

 

You asked if they were a lock for the playoffs. NY has had a questionable staff and an awesome lineup for the last 7 years.

200 innings of what? I'm sure a few of our guys could give us 200 innings as well. Just depends on how effective you want those to be. At this point, I'm not sure if Dontrelle giving them 200 innings would be a good thing or a bad thing for them....

Who? Danks was gassed after 100. Floyd? That could get ugly. Garland gave you 200 innings of league average pitching. I wasn't his biggest fan, but that's worth something, maybe not $12 million a year, but something. The bullpen has not been used all that much innings-wise since Ozzie took over. As bad as its been the last couple of years, overworked really could never be used as an excuse. Now it might, especially if Contreras can't bounce back.

Edited December 9, 200718 yr by Dick Allen