PDA

View Full Version : Zach Stewart one hitter complete game



superfio
09-06-2011, 11:48 AM
Lad is competent and looks exactly what is missing on the back end of the rotation

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-stewart-gives-sox-optimism-for-the-future-20110905,0,6821990.story

Did we give him up too soon?

Bombtista
09-06-2011, 11:53 AM
We didnt give him up for nothing. He was the only valuable piece we lost in the trade that landed us a player with a huge ceiling.

You should always take the stud hitter over the stud pitcher.

Not that either of them have proved much so far.

Nonetheless a great game for him

Kenny Powders
09-06-2011, 11:54 AM
NO. We have plenty of guys that can fill in the back of the rotation. Young cheap controllable projectable centrefielders on the other hand we don't.

2009mvp
09-06-2011, 12:01 PM
He has a 5.86 ERA with the White Sox.

madmike77
09-06-2011, 12:15 PM
Lad is competent and looks exactly what is missing on the back end of the rotation

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-stewart-gives-sox-optimism-for-the-future-20110905,0,6821990.story

Did we give him up too soon?

You need to look at his 3 starts before the one-hitter - all were pretty bad.

Maybe he's finally becoming the pitcher people thought he could be, but I'm not holding my breath.

La11
09-06-2011, 12:15 PM
Congrats to Stewart. I wished he would have gotten a no hitter and then all Jays fan would be all over AA for trading him.

Bombtista
09-06-2011, 12:18 PM
Congrats to Stewart. I wished he would have gotten a no hitter and then all Jays fan would be all over AA for trading him.

Whaaat? That was a great trade. I dont think him getting a one hitter for us would have changed anything.


Especially based on his last 3 starts

Kelly Gruber
09-06-2011, 12:42 PM
That was an embarrassing line-up for the Twins, but credit where credit is due, had some good movement on his fastball through the late innings.

Guys have good days, and the Twins had a guy named Brian Dinkelman in the line-up... I'm serious...

We'll see what the future holds for this trade. I'd still take my chances with it.

BlueJaysFan
09-06-2011, 01:16 PM
I will always root for him, hope he can have a great career :) Good for him!

GNick
09-06-2011, 02:25 PM
Lad is competent and looks exactly what is missing on the back end of the rotation

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-stewart-gives-sox-optimism-for-the-future-20110905,0,6821990.story

Did we give him up too soon?

Doubt it...the Twins team was a depleted lineup what was there most are playing out the string. Still a great accomplishment. I don't think Rasmus or Stewart will amount to anything major. Average major leaguers. See Gose or Marisinick in cf by 2014

Valleyfella
09-06-2011, 02:58 PM
The Jays have a lot of young pitching and Stewart was one of the most expendable of those with potential.

superfio
09-06-2011, 04:08 PM
Personally I am all for the trade and thought Stewart/frasor/rzcep were expendable

Just tossed it up to see what everyone else thinks

One deep worry is that what if Stewart became morrow-dominant (at times) and cecil declines steadily... Then we lost a quick fix to the hole in our rotation

phillipmike
09-06-2011, 04:32 PM
Good for Stewart.

No one should judge him after one start or the three before. He is a young pitcher with promise. I preferred to hang onto him but you cant get a player like Rasmus only expecting to give up relievers and Patterson. You got to give to get.

I expect Stewart to have a good MLB career.

Jays Claw
09-06-2011, 05:29 PM
Did we give him up too soon?

Why are you basing this off of one game? In his last 10 starts he's given up 27 earned runs on 60 hits in 53.1 IP, resulting to a 4.56 ERA. He definitely seems to be and definitely has the potential to be a solid #2 guy. However, it's way too early to tell whether or not either side won the trade considering Rasmus hasn't even played half a season with us.

And as someone above mentioned earlier - we've got a handful of young pitchers who could easily replace him at the back-end of the rotation. Guys like McGuire, McGowan, Jenkins, Drabek, Norris etc. Also, it doesn't hurt to mention the fact that Stewart wasn't the best guy we gave up. That title belongs to Rzep.

Billyen
09-07-2011, 03:58 AM
Guys have good days, and the Twins had a guy named Brian Dinkelman in the line-up... I'm serious...



Dinkelman just went deep.

:rimshot:

Thank you and try the veal. :)

Halladay
09-07-2011, 04:53 AM
Give up too soon? Do people seriously base an argument off one game and not even bother to look up the stats? Stewart will be a mid-backend starter and was expendable. Not to mention getting a young, cheap 4 tool center fielder with big upside in return. Odds are in a few years we'll look back at this deal and all agree we won it. AA made a great trade. We have a dozen Stewarts in the system and the philosophy AA is using is to draft and develop pitching and use them to find position players.

Shifty1 69
09-07-2011, 09:01 AM
Lad is competent and looks exactly what is missing on the back end of the rotation

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/chi-stewart-gives-sox-optimism-for-the-future-20110905,0,6821990.story

Did we give him up too soon?

lol, no.

Unless of course you think Rajai, McCoy or Wise are the longterm answer at CF... or you are patient and trusting enough to wait for Gose.

mtf
09-07-2011, 05:35 PM
Did we give him up too soon?

I hope he has a great career, and I was somewhat disappointed to see him moved, but no they did not give up on him too soon. The trade was essentially Colby Rasmus for Zach Stewart and Mark Rzepcznyski. It was a steal.

Unlike what people seem to think in that ridiculous Halladay thread asking if the Jays lost that trade, there is such thing as a win-win trade. Let's hope this is one of them. Either way, doesn't seem like the Jays lost this deal.

3mikee_
09-07-2011, 05:48 PM
We didnt give him up for nothing. He was the only valuable piece we lost in the trade that landed us a player with a huge ceiling.

You should always take the stud hitter over the stud pitcher.

Not that either of them have proved much so far.

Nonetheless a great game for him

Why?

Bombtista
09-07-2011, 06:10 PM
Why?

Just my opinion really.

Who would you rather have? Pujols or Lincecum? Not saying either of these players will ever amount to what they are but on a smaller scale it still applies.

Trades are always going to be a gamble, especially with prospects but getting rid of Stewart + rentals to get Rasmus is great in my books

You can pretty much compare any seemingly similar position players vs pitchers and you should always take the hitter. Speaking in terms of this season. Jose Bautista vs Justin Verlander. Both great players but one only plays every 5 days while one plays every day

mtf
09-07-2011, 06:50 PM
Just my opinion really.

Who would you rather have? Pujols or Lincecum? Not saying either of these players will ever amount to what they are but on a smaller scale it still applies.

Trades are always going to be a gamble, especially with prospects but getting rid of Stewart + rentals to get Rasmus is great in my books

You can pretty much compare any seemingly similar position players vs pitchers and you should always take the hitter. Speaking in terms of this season. Jose Bautista vs Justin Verlander. Both great players but one only plays every 5 days while one plays every day

Trading Stewart for Rasmus wasn't awesome because they gave up a pitcher for a hitter, it was the quality of the players being moved that made it so awesome. It's was a steal for the Jays because no one else in that trade come anywhere near Ramsus' potential.

In general, most people feel pitching is the most valuable commodity. In your Pujols example, a better comparison would be "Who would you rather have, Halladay or Pujols?" and I think most people would choose Halladay. Ask the Yankee's or Red Sox fans who they'd rather have right now :P

madmike77
09-07-2011, 06:54 PM
I'd take the stud starter over the stud hitter, but Stewart never really looked like a stud. Decent 4-5 guy at best.

Bombtista
09-07-2011, 11:39 PM
Trading Stewart for Rasmus wasn't awesome because they gave up a pitcher for a hitter, it was the quality of the players being moved that made it so awesome. It's was a steal for the Jays because no one else in that trade come anywhere near Ramsus' potential.

In general, most people feel pitching is the most valuable commodity. In your Pujols example, a better comparison would be "Who would you rather have, Halladay or Pujols?" and I think most people would choose Halladay. Ask the Yankee's or Red Sox fans who they'd rather have right now :P

Lincecum and Halladay are both considered elite pitchers. Just like Pujols, Kemp, Bautista etc are considered elite hitters so who cares about such a thing.

The only reason the Yanks or Red sox would prefer a pitcher ATM doesn't mean a thing. Its just currently a position of need for them compared to a first basemen which they both have.

If your starting a fantasy team for real you would take the hitter, at least you should.

miller74
09-07-2011, 11:58 PM
Why?

Position player plays everyday. Pitching obviously important but let's say id rather the best positional player in the league opposed to the best pitcher

mtf
09-08-2011, 02:11 AM
Lincecum and Halladay are both considered elite pitchers. Just like Pujols, Kemp, Bautista etc are considered elite hitters so who cares about such a thing.

The only reason the Yanks or Red sox would prefer a pitcher ATM doesn't mean a thing. Its just currently a position of need for them compared to a first basemen which they both have.

If your starting a fantasy team for real you would take the hitter, at least you should.

Well, yeah. In fantasy baseball, at least in yahoo public leagues, hitters compete in 5 categories. With pitchers it's only 4 (assuming you don't have a guy who wins 20 and saves 50 games, then he's fulfills 5 categories).

The point was merely that most teams would probably prefer to have a pitcher to a hitter if both are of equivalent value, and that the Rasmus deal wasn't awesome simply because we got a hitter for a pitcher. Rasmus was by far the highest ceiling player in that deal and he's young and controllable for a couple more years at least.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion on whether or not it's better to have a hitter or a pitcher, but I don't think your opinion would be shared by most knowledgeable baseball fans.

ghost dog
09-11-2011, 01:56 AM
:clap: good job Zach . The best trades make all GM's involved look good.