Tyler Flowers is your 2014 starting catcher

[Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm]

I'm not the only one in this thread that isn't sure that Quintana is a #2 on a playoff team.

 

And that simply means that you aren't alone in your wrong-ness.

[Balta1701]

I'm not the only one in this thread that isn't sure that Quintana is a #2 on a playoff team.

However, this other poster named Marty34 told me that it takes 2+ years to develop a pitcher, so we should conclude that Quintana will keep getting better this year based on what he told me.

[witesoxfan]

bolded above = plausible deniability.

 

If that's the case, the only time in his career that MARK BUEHRLE was any thing more than "a #2 starter" was in 2001 and in 2007.

 

2013 Jose Quintana >>>>>> every year of Buehrle's career EXCEPT 2001 and in 2007.

 

Everyone LOVES Mark Buehrle, including me. But somehow the year the Sox let him walk, they backfill the rotation with not one, but TWO lefthanded starting pitchers that ARE better than Buerhle - with both having ceilings to be even better than they currently are.

 

Go Sox.

 

This just isn't true though. While Quintana has put up better ERA numbers than Buehrle did, he also pitched in a much more potent offensive environment. Buehrle was putting up ERA-'s (league adjusted) for numbers in the 70-85 range and FIP-'s in the 80-90 range. Quintana has been at 89 and 85 for ERA- and 99 and 93 for FIP-. That isn't to say Quintana couldn't get there, but Buehrle was a pretty incredible pitcher for a long time for the White Sox.

 

He is a really similar pitcher to Buehrle though. Doesn't have great, great stuff but does have some pop on the fastball and he shows enough with his other pitches to throw hitters off.

Edited March 25, 2014 by witesoxfan

[Leonard Zelig]

bolded above = plausible deniability.

 

If that's the case, the only time in his career that MARK BUEHRLE was any thing more than "a #2 starter" was in 2001 and in 2007.

 

2013 Jose Quintana >>>>>> every year of Buehrle's career EXCEPT 2001 and in 2007.

 

Everyone LOVES Mark Buehrle, including me. But somehow the year the Sox let him walk, they backfill the rotation with not one, but TWO lefthanded starting pitchers that ARE better than Buerhle - with both having ceilings to be even better than they currently are.

 

Go Sox.

Mark had a pretty nice 2005 too.

[Eminor3rd]

I'm not the only one in this thread that isn't sure that Quintana is a #2 on a playoff team.

 

Yet you're the only one in the thread that thinks it matters. The rest of us understand that he's likely about a 3 win pitcher (assuming health) being paid like a castoff free agent, and that is super useful to any team.

[Eminor3rd]

However, this other poster named Marty34 told me that it takes 2+ years to develop a pitcher, so we should conclude that Quintana will keep getting better this year based on what he told me.

 

Yep, and he also told us that rebuilding isn't about winning in the future, so really we should all just meet at the bar and cry about Adam Dunn.

[Donny Lucy's Avocado Farm]

This just isn't true though. While Quintana has put up better ERA numbers than Buehrle did, he also pitched in a much more potent offensive environment. Buehrle was putting up ERA-'s (league adjusted) for numbers in the 70-85 range and FIP-'s in the 80-90 range. Quintana has been at 89 and 85 for ERA- and 99 and 93 for FIP-. That isn't to say Quintana couldn't get there, but Buehrle was a pretty incredible pitcher for a long time for the White Sox.

 

He is a really similar pitcher to Buehrle though. Doesn't have great, great stuff but does have some pop on the fastball and he shows enough with his other pitches to throw hitters off.

 

 

Yea, I was probably a little overzealous with my wording. All I was saying is:

 

1) Quintana is a #2

2) The front office replaced Buehrle with 2 outstanding lefthanded starters

3) We should rejoice in both #1 and #2

Edited March 25, 2014 by Charlie Haeger's Knuckles

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Yea, I was probably a little overzealous with my wording. All I was saying is:

 

1) Quintana is a #2

2) The front office replaced Buehrle with 2 outstanding lefthanded starters

3) We should rejoice in both #1 and #2

As close as I could get with the smiley's to rejoicing.

[Marty34]

Yet you're the only one in the thread that thinks it matters. The rest of us understand that he's likely about a 3 win pitcher (assuming health) being paid like a castoff free agent, and that is super useful to any team.

 

If the Sox find themselves in a situation where they need their second best starter to be better than Quintana, his contract extension should make him a valuable commodity in that pursuit. That would fall under your "super useful to any team" criteria, no?

[Eminor3rd]

If the Sox find themselves in a situation where they need their second best starter to be better than Quintana, his contract extension should make him a valuable commodity in that pursuit. That would fall under your "super useful to any team" criteria, no?

 

Yes, but my point is that I don't see why we need to trade him to get a better pitcher. We're going to need a good #3 also. This is where you try to sign someone or deal prospects, and that's a 2015-16 problem. This year we need to see if (1) we can depend on a Danks bounceback and (2) we have mid or back-end guys in Johnson and Rienzo going forward.

[Marty34]

Yes, but my point is that I don't see why we need to trade him to get a better pitcher. We're going to need a good #3 also. This is where you try to sign someone or deal prospects, and that's a 2015-16 problem. This year we need to see if (1) we can depend on a Danks bounceback and (2) we have mid or back-end guys in Johnson and Rienzo going forward.

 

Because the value of an established #2 starter, should one become available, is going to be prohibitive and if you take Quintana off the table, we likely wouldn't have enough.

[caulfield12]

Because you don't sign #2 starters at peak value, the risk is too high with pitchers.

 

You consider going after aces in unique situations, like Tanaka or through the draft, or by acquiring low level prospects with the ABILITY to be 2's, but you don't buy them for a premium.

 

We have the best pitching coach in the game, we've already turned Buerhle, Loiaza, Contreras, Floyd, Danks, Humber, John Danks and Quintana into #2 quality starters or better (at different points in their careers, or at least for stretches) and yet paid very little or nothing to acquire most of them.

 

For all we know, Paulino could be the next. Or Johnson. Or Beck. Definitely, the college pitcher we select in June will be projected to have a 1 ceiling, 2 at the worst.

Edited March 25, 2014 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Because the value of an established #2 starter, should one become available, is going to be prohibitive and if you take Quintana off the table, we likely wouldn't have enough.

 

Baseball needs more GM's like you for Rick Hahn to trade with. Trading cheap #3 cost control starters, to acquire full price #2 starters? Awesome.

[caulfield12]

Baseball needs more GM's like you for Rick Hahn to trade with. Trading cheap #3 cost control starters, to acquire full price #2 starters? Awesome.

 

 

See Edwin Jackson.

 

See acquiring Nick Swisher at his highest possible value in terms of Sox prospects.

Edited March 26, 2014 by caulfield12

[Marty34]

Baseball needs more GM's like you for Rick Hahn to trade with. Trading cheap #3 cost control starters, to acquire full price #2 starters? Awesome.

 

You act like the Sox are a small market team. We've been over this, but there are no laws limiting revenue.

[southsider2k5]

You act like the Sox are a small market team. We've been over this, but there are no laws limiting revenue.

 

Pfft, reality is overrated anyway.

[caulfield12]

In Chicago, spending money to bring in superstars has never driven attendance or created additional revenues.

 

It has ALWAYS been having a winning team, and not only a winning team, but one that the fans believe can actually go far in the playoffs.

 

Otherwise, they'll tune out or be afraid to believe in that team, for fear of being disappointed, as we saw in 2012.

 

 

If nothing else, most White Sox fans know that having 2-3 superstars hasn't equated to having a successful team...it's when all the small/complementary parts come together like 2005, along with solid starting pitching, that true and lasting success is possible.

 

Nobody's going to come out to watch Jimenez/Santana/Garza pitch specifically, but fans would support that team if the addition of one of those pitchers made a 90+ win season possible, along with a deep playoff run.

 

After 2005, it's not enough for White Sox fans unless they have a team capable of advancing deep in the playoffs and winning it all again. To do that, you can't take mostly short-term steps at the cost of long-term fixes/solutions. Hahn is definitely taking the right approach this time. Whether it will work or not, we can't be sure, but the methodical process is the correct one in this situation...especially the idea that the fanbase isn't going to wait 5 years, they need to see results within 2-3 seasons.

[caulfield12]

In Chicago, spending money to bring in superstars has never driven attendance or created additional revenues.

 

It has ALWAYS been about having a winning team, and not only a winning team, but one that the fans believe can actually go far in the playoffs.

 

Otherwise, they'll tune out or be afraid to believe in that team, for fear of being disappointed, as we saw in 2012.

 

 

If nothing else, most White Sox fans know that having 2-3 superstars hasn't equated to having a successful team...it's when all the small/complementary parts come together like 2005, along with solid starting pitching, that true and lasting success is possible.

 

Nobody's going to come out to watch Jimenez/Santana/Garza pitch specifically, but fans would support that team if the addition of one of those pitchers made a 90+ win season possible, along with a deep playoff run.

 

After 2005, it's not enough for White Sox fans unless they have a team capable of advancing deep in the playoffs and winning it all again. To do that, you can't take mostly short-term steps at the cost of long-term fixes/solutions. Hahn is definitely taking the right approach this time. Whether it will work or not, we can't be sure, but the methodical process is the correct one in this situation...especially the idea that the fanbase isn't going to wait 5 years, they need to see results within 2-3 seasons.

Edited March 26, 2014 by caulfield12

[Marty34]

Pfft, reality is overrated anyway.

 

You are such a Reinsdorf apologist.

[ScottyDo]

Everyone looks like a Reinsdorf apologist when arguing with irrational Reinsdorf rants.

[caulfield12]

Go back to chisox.com from 2001-2004, especially after the Todd Ritchie trade blew up.

 

There were probably only 10-20% of posters who consistently defended the Reinsdorf regime.

 

2005 changed a lot of things in terms of fan frustration, disappointment and the ever-popular "he's too cheap" refrain.

[Marty34]

Everyone looks like a Reinsdorf apologist when arguing with irrational Reinsdorf rants.

 

This does not explain SS2K5's posts against spending any money.

[caulfield12]

We were willing to spend money on McCann, Abreu and Tanaka, to name a few.

 

Just not on Santana or Jimenez.

[Eminor3rd]

This does not explain SS2K5's posts against spending any money.

 

No one is against spending money.

 

EVERYONE is against making stupid moves in free agency.

[Marty34]

No one is against spending money.

 

EVERYONE is against making stupid moves in free agency.

 

Not true. The reaction to the Dunn signing was decidedly pro around here.