JUGGERNAUT

About as ridiculous as letting them fail & having to listen to your wife cry her eyes out because all they talk about at family parties & get togethers is how well their kids are doing in school. I just faced the reality of the situation & choose the route which I can best control with respect to my time commitment. Prior to just doing the homework I was playing the role of reviewing it. That took up more of my time. Why? Because the process of review requires having to teach the child what she did wrong. You wind up doing the homework anyways. Now I just have to do the homework & my wife then plays the role of the reviewer. When it comes time to study for tests & quizzes my wife handles that. I just have to produce answer keys. I'm getting time back for myself & I'm increasing my efficiency in doing the homework. My time commitment is ENTIRELY under my control.

I like what you've done with the whole Filibuster idea but sadly to say I have no time to devote to this. :cry: I'm mostly a homework slave for my kids these days. Are you open to suggestions? I wanted to respond to the arts debate but that was a closed debate. Could we create open offshoots from those threads? I wanted to challenge FlaSoxxJim with recent developments of private funding, sponsorship, & investment in the traditional arts (opera, dance, orchestra's, parade bands, etc.) as well as the more controversial & alternative arts. I likewise wanted to challenge the need to support an art student who feels a need to produce controversial & offensive art pcs backed by federal dollars when there are aspiring art students in need of those dollars for using their talent in a productive & non-offensive way. And finally I wanted to challenge FSJ with the simple fact that CGI has changed the way the world views visual art altogether. It's no longer a hobby. When you measure it's impact on Hollywood & the gaming industry it's an industry that approaches nearly $100 Billion USD a year in sales revenue. With so much of the private sector behind the visual arts sector these days there doesn't seem much reason to throw federal support behind fringe elements that show no promise of adding to the GDP with their talents.

My hobbies have been cut to the bone of late because most of my spare time is spent doing my kid's homework. I won't go into the particulars. Let's just say my eldest kid doesn't take after me when it comes to getting high marks. The logic is clear: If I am doing the homework then she'll get high marks on it & she'll have more time to study. We tried grounding her from her social life early on but the emotional price for that was too much to bear. So my darling daughter now gets to enjoy her social life & be free from homework. All we ask in return is that she does well enough on tests to get high marks. I knew very well I'd be devoting my time to her for Algebra but I never believed it would carry over to Economics, English, Soc Science, & Biology. Algebra & English are pretty much the same as back in my day but SS & Biology have radically changed. Back in my day Biology was devoted to teaching students about the physiology of plants & animals. I recall cutting open rats, frogs, mice, birds, large insects, fish, & even a small pig during my high school bio days. This past fall my kid learned zilch about such things. Instead she learned about scientific method, DNA testing, genetics, & now evolution. I think the physiology might be more important to someone who aspires to be a physician (human or animal) someday. Social Science is radically different as well. Tripping back thru time my classes were all about relationships between labor & business, war, & mostly history. Her classes are about Wall Mart, the MLBPA, & career planning. I know we have varying ages here at SOXTALK so I'll leave this whine with this thought: Nothing is more disheartening in this life than having to do another person's homework without the reward of getting an A on the test. I keep hoping that she just needs me to get her on the right track & then I can be freed from being a homework slave. Everyone needs hopes & dreams.

I disagree emphatically with Kotex Boy. Despite what we feel towards Frank in the midwest he is not a lock to be a first ballot HOFer because he has never played for an East Coast team. The EC controls the HOF. Yes I think it's unfair & crap & all the rest of the expletives you can think of but it is what it is. So Frank's only way to combat that bias is to reach 500 HRs. As for what this means to the White Sox it's only going to hurt if they face us in the post season. They've beaten us badly over the years w/out Frank so it's not likely we were expecting to beat them in 2006. In fact when you consider Frank's impact on our opponents over the years a stronger A's team can only help the White Sox' first goal of winning the ALC again. Apr 2006: 3@Minn, 3vDET, 3@KCR May 2006: 2vCLE, 3@CWS (M,T,W), 3vKCR : The Sox might see sell-outs. Jun 2006: 4vMinn, 3@CLE Jul 2006: 3vDET, 3@DET Aug 2006: 3@KCR Sept 2006: 3@Minn, 3vCWS, 4vCLE A's v ALC: 10 w Minn, 9 w KCR, 9 v DET, 9 v CLE. 6 v CWS

Jon Garland 2005 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Apr. 25 @OAK W 6-0 9.0D 4 0 0 0 1 3 13 10 116 31 81 W(4-0) - 1.80 May. 1 DET W 8-0 9.0D 4 0 0 0 1 6 11 7 107 31 84 W(5-0) - 1.39 Sep. 4 DET W 2-0 9.0D 4 0 0 0 1 7 8 11 121 33 85 W(17-8) - 3.28 Oct. 14 @LAA W 5-2 9.0D 4 2 2 1 1 7 10 8 118 30 77 W(1-0) - 2.00 Apr. 20 @DET W 9-1 8.0D 5 1 1 0 2 4 15 6 96 30 70 W(3-0) - 2.57 May. 12 BAL W 3-2 8.0D 8 2 2 1 1 4 12 4 103 31 61 W(7-0) - 2.39 Jun. 21 KC W 5-1 8.1D 4 1 1 1 1 2 10 13 102 31 72 W(12-2) - 3.40 Sep. 16 @MIN W 2-1 8.0D 6 1 1 1 1 6 10 5 123 29 71 - - 3.41 Apr. 15 SEA W 6-4 7.0D 2 2 2 0 2 3 11 6 87 24 66 W(2-0) - 3.46 May. 17 TEX W 5-2 7.0D 5 2 2 0 2 4 10 8 102 27 61 W(8-0) - 2.41 May. 23 @LAA L 4-0 7.0Q 11 3 3 0 1 4 7 11 104 31 46 L(8-1) - 2.57 Jun. 10 @SD W 4-2 7.0D 6 1 1 1 1 4 7 7 108 26 64 W(10-2) - 3.23 Jun. 26 CHC L 2-0 7.1D 4 2 1 1 1 5 9 6 97 27 68 L(12-3) - 3.25 Jul. 2 @OAK W 5-3 7.0Q 5 3 3 0 1 1 13 7 110 27 55 W(13-3) - 3.29 Jul. 27 @KC L 6-5 7.0D 5 3 1 1 0 2 9 12 88 28 61 - - 3.09 Aug. 7 SEA W 3-1 7.1D 5 1 1 0 2 3 13 6 89 29 65 W(16-5) - 3.29 Aug. 19 NYY L 3-1 7.0Q 7 3 2 0 2 3 12 7 120 28 54 L(16-7) - 3.43 Aug. 25 @MIN W 2-1 7.2D 6 0 0 0 1 5 15 5 115 28 71 - - 3.28 Sep. 21 CLE L 8-0 7.1W 7 5 5 2 4 3 12 6 113 31 43 L(17-10) - 3.51 Oct. 25 @HOU W 7-5 7.0D 7 4 2 1 2 4 10 8 93 28 53 - - 2.25 Apr. 9 @MIN W 8-5 6.0Q 10 3 3 1 0 1 13 7 84 26 41 W(1-0) - 4.50 May. 29 @TEX L 12-4 6.0P 9 7 7 1 1 3 10 9 104 28 28 L(8-2) - 3.22 Jun. 4 CLE W 6-5 6.2Q 9 4 4 1 1 4 10 9 106 29 43 W(9-2) - 3.40 Jun. 15 ARI W 12-6 6.0P 6 6 6 3 3 4 11 7 94 27 37 W(11-2) - 3.61 Jul. 17 @CLE W 4-0 6.0D 7 0 0 0 2 2 10 6 106 25 58 W(14-4) - 3.21 Jul. 22 BOS W 8-4 6.2D 7 2 2 1 3 5 3 9 117 29 54 W(15-4) - 3.19 Aug. 2 TOR L 7-3 6.0P 13 7 7 3 0 4 10 7 101 28 22 L(15-5) - 3.40 Sep. 10 LAA L 10-5 6.0P 8 7 7 2 1 1 10 8 88 27 28 L(17-9) - 3.51 Sep. 26 @DET L 4-3 6.2Q 8 3 3 2 3 7 8 6 98 31 50 - - 3.53 Oct. 1 @CLE W 4-3 6.2D 4 2 2 0 1 5 11 6 96 25 62 W(18-10) - 3.50 May. 7 @TOR W 10-7 5.2P 9 6 6 1 1 2 11 7 107 27 28 W(6-0) - 2.42 Jul. 8 OAK L 4-2 5.0W 8 3 3 0 1 2 10 4 111 23 40 L(13-4) - 3.38 Aug. 13 @BOS L 7-4 5.1P 9 5 5 1 2 4 8 4 108 29 32 L(16-6) - 3.47 Aug. 30 @TEX L 8-6 4.1P 7 8 5 2 3 2 10 4 93 25 22 L(16-8) - 3.45 Dominant:19, Just Quality:6, Just Winnable:2, Poor:7 Jon Garland 2004 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Apr. 9 @NYY W 9-3 8.0D 4 1 1 0 7 2 12 7 119 32 65 W(1-0) - 1.13 Jun. 20 @WAS L 4-2 8.1Q 3 4 4 1 3 7 11 8 110 31 65 L(5-4) - 4.64 Sep. 26 KC W 5-1 8.1D 5 1 1 1 2 5 11 7 102 29 72 W(11-11) - 4.95 Apr. 14 KC W 10-9 7.2W 7 5 5 2 2 3 10 10 115 29 41 - - 3.68 Apr. 21 NYY L 3-1 7.0Q 5 3 3 2 2 6 7 9 104 27 59 L(1-1) - 3.74 May. 2 TOR W 3-2 7.0D 10 2 2 0 1 5 9 6 96 30 53 W(2-1) - 4.15 May. 13 BAL L 1-0 7.0D 6 1 1 0 3 1 9 7 123 27 59 L(2-2) - 3.97 May. 18 @CLE W 4-2 7.0D 5 1 1 0 1 6 14 5 90 27 68 W(3-2) - 3.62 May. 23 @MIN W 17-7 7.0P 10 6 6 0 2 3 13 5 111 33 34 W(4-2) - 4.09 May. 28 LAA W 4-3 7.0D 8 2 2 0 1 3 11 9 107 29 55 - - 3.93 Jun. 4 @SEA W 4-2 7.1D 4 2 2 0 1 3 10 7 114 27 64 W(5-2) - 3.79 Jun. 15 @FLA W 7-5 7.2Q 6 4 3 2 2 1 10 9 100 28 47 - - 4.67 Jul. 1 @MIN W 2-1 7.0D 7 1 1 0 3 2 7 9 83 28 58 W(6-5) - 4.61 Jul. 9 SEA W 6-2 7.0D 4 1 1 1 2 3 11 8 100 27 66 W(7-5) - 4.41 Jul. 15 @OAK L 4-2 7.0Q 6 4 3 1 5 2 15 7 113 31 48 L(7-6) - 4.38 Aug. 5 @KC L 6-4 7.0W 7 6 6 2 2 3 14 8 113 30 40 L(7-8) - 4.74 Aug. 10 KC W 9-3 7.0Q 7 3 3 0 1 4 13 5 107 29 54 W(8-8) - 4.70 Aug. 24 @DET W 9-5 7.0Q 8 4 4 1 2 3 13 8 112 31 46 W(9-9) - 4.79 Aug. 29 @CLE L 9-0 7.0P 9 6 6 4 1 3 13 9 99 29 37 L(9-10) - 4.91 Sep. 3 SEA W 7-5 7.0Q 8 4 4 1 2 4 13 7 105 30 47 W(10-10) - 4.92 Sep. 16 @MIN L 10-1 7.0W 9 5 5 1 3 4 10 9 115 32 40 L(10-11) - 4.99 Apr. 27 CLE L 11-7 6.0W 10 5 5 0 2 4 5 12 94 29 34 - - 4.55 May. 7 @TOR L 5-4 6.0Q 7 4 4 2 2 3 11 8 100 27 43 - - 4.43 Jul. 20 @TEX L 6-4 6.0Q 8 4 4 1 1 7 5 6 111 27 46 - - 4.45 Jul. 25 DET L 9-2 6.0W 6 4 4 0 3 3 2 11 113 26 44 L(7-7) - 4.52 Jul. 30 @DET L 5-4 6.0W 5 4 4 1 1 4 6 3 70 24 49 - - 4.59 Aug. 14 @BOS L 4-3 6.0Q 7 3 3 2 3 4 8 7 108 25 47 - - 4.69 Sep. 10 @LAA L 7-5 6.1Q 5 2 2 0 4 3 8 6 103 27 54 - - 4.94 Sep. 21 MIN W 8-6 6.0P 9 6 6 2 1 3 7 12 114 27 32 - - 5.11 Oct. 1 @KC W 4-2 6.0Q 5 2 2 0 3 3 8 5 108 27 54 W(12-11) - 4.89 Jun. 9 PHI L 13-10 4.0P 8 10 10 3 4 1 9 5 76 22 3 L(5-3) - 4.73 Jun. 25 CHC L 7-4 5.1P 6 6 5 1 1 3 6 11 90 25 36 L(5-5) - 4.84 Aug. 19 DET L 8-4 3.2P 6 7 3 3 2 1 6 5 69 16 25 L(8-9) - 4.78 Sep. 7 @TEX L 10-3 0.1P 3 2 2 0 1 1 1 0 18 5 - - - 5.01 Dominant:9, Just Quality:12, Just Winnable:6, Poor:7 Jon Garland 2003 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* May. 28 @TOR W 8-0 8.0D 5 0 0 0 0 6 10 9 98 28 78 W(3-4) - 4.88 Jun. 15 SD L 1-0 8.0D 3 1 1 0 4 4 13 6 116 29 72 L(4-6) - 4.84 Aug. 19 LAA W 5-2 8.0D 5 2 2 2 3 1 6 13 102 30 62 W(9-9) - 4.47 Sep. 26 @KC W 11-2 8.0D 3 1 1 1 3 1 14 8 110 27 70 W(12-13) - 4.51 Apr. 16 KC W 4-3 7.0D 3 1 1 0 2 6 11 5 94 25 71 - - 5.82 Jun. 10 SF W 5-3 7.0D 5 2 2 1 1 7 12 6 102 27 65 W(4-5) - 5.29 Jun. 30 MIN W 10-3 7.0D 5 2 2 2 2 7 9 7 105 28 64 W(6-6) - 4.65 Jul. 8 @DET L 2-1 7.0D 6 2 2 1 2 3 9 6 91 28 58 L(6-7) - 4.50 Jul. 19 DET W 6-2 7.0D 6 2 2 1 3 5 5 9 107 28 59 W(7-7) - 4.51 Jul. 24 @TOR W 4-3 7.0D 4 2 2 1 3 2 11 7 99 27 60 - - 4.40 Aug. 24 TEX L 5-0 7.0D 5 3 3 1 2 10 8 6 106 28 63 L(9-10) - 4.44 Sep. 5 CLE W 5-3 7.1D 5 2 2 1 3 3 8 8 104 27 60 W(11-10) - 4.31 Sep. 10 MIN L 4-1 7.0Q 7 3 3 0 2 5 13 5 105 29 54 L(11-11) - 4.29 Apr. 9 @CLE L 5-2 6.0P 6 5 5 1 4 2 8 11 92 27 38 L(0-1) - 9.00 Apr. 26 MIN W 7-4 6.2D 4 2 2 2 2 5 7 7 89 24 56 W(1-2) - 6.40 May. 17 @MIN L 3-1 6.0D 6 2 1 0 1 2 11 5 94 24 55 L(2-4) - 6.10 May. 23 DET L 3-2 6.0Q 4 2 2 0 3 2 10 6 89 24 55 - - 5.70 Jun. 20 @CHC W 12-3 6.0Q 8 2 2 1 3 4 8 6 104 29 49 W(5-6) - 4.71 Jun. 25 @MIN L 6-5 6.2Q 9 5 4 0 2 2 11 5 93 27 33 - - 4.81 Jul. 30 @KC W 15-4 6.0W 8 4 4 0 1 2 16 3 98 27 41 W(8-7) - 4.48 Aug. 14 @LAA L 5-1 6.1Q 7 4 3 1 3 2 8 8 106 28 44 L(8-9) - 4.60 Aug. 30 @DET W 5-2 6.0D 5 2 2 0 4 8 7 1 103 26 58 W(10-10) - 4.39 May. 1 OAK W 7-5 5.0P 4 5 4 2 4 1 7 8 102 23 38 W(2-2) - 6.53 May. 8 @OAK L 8-5 5.0P 8 5 5 1 1 2 9 8 89 23 32 L(2-3) - 6.88 Jul. 13 @CLE W 7-4 5.2W 6 4 4 1 2 5 6 7 93 22 39 - - 4.64 Aug. 4 KC L 13-9 5.0P 6 4 4 0 2 1 9 5 79 24 38 - - 4.58 Aug. 9 OAK L 7-2 5.0W 9 6 3 1 1 3 9 6 95 26 33 L(8-8) - 4.61 Sep. 17 @MIN L 4-2 5.2W 6 4 4 1 5 2 9 2 79 22 33 L(11-12) - 4.38 Apr. 3 @KC L 12-6 4.0P 9 5 5 1 1 1 7 7 83 22 24 - - 11.25 Jun. 4 @ARI L 8-6 4.0P 10 7 7 2 1 2 5 8 86 23 15 L(3-5) - 5.61 Apr. 21 CLE L 9-2 3.2P 5 5 5 2 2 1 2 8 65 15 27 L(0-2) - 7.32 Sep. 21 KC L 10-4 3.2P 6 7 7 1 2 1 7 1 61 16 17 L(11-13) - 4.66 Dominant:15, Just Quality:5, Just Winnable:4, Poor:9 Jon Garland 2002 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Aug. 28 TOR W 8-0 9.0D 6 0 0 0 1 9 12 6 112 32 83 W(9-10) - 4.87 May. 22 @BOS W 2-0 8.0D 3 0 0 0 0 4 10 8 83 27 80 W(5-3) - 5.10 Apr. 15 BAL W 13-4 7.0D 5 3 2 0 0 5 11 8 85 26 62 W(1-1) - 6.06 May. 28 NYY L 4-2 7.0D 6 3 3 0 3 5 11 4 104 29 55 L(5-4) - 4.96 Jun. 3 KC W 4-0 7.2D 4 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 100 27 67 W(6-4) - 4.48 Jun. 8 WAS L 2-1 7.2D 3 1 1 0 2 3 8 8 103 25 65 - - 4.20 Jun. 24 @MIN L 5-4 7.2Q 11 4 4 1 2 4 11 10 97 32 38 - - 4.42 Jul. 5 CLE L 4-2 7.2Q 5 4 4 1 3 3 7 11 103 27 48 L(7-6) - 4.57 Jul. 14 @DET W 6-4 7.0Q 8 4 4 0 2 4 8 7 92 29 47 W(8-6) - 4.61 Aug. 5 @TB W 4-3 7.0D 3 3 3 1 2 8 7 6 104 25 65 - - 5.20 Aug. 10 SEA L 7-3 7.2D 4 3 0 0 4 5 12 4 109 29 61 - - 4.95 Sep. 12 @KC W 5-1 7.0D 2 1 1 1 2 3 7 10 106 25 70 W(11-11) - 4.74 Sep. 29 @MIN L 3-1 7.0D 7 1 1 0 1 3 7 12 89 28 61 - - 4.58 Apr. 25 @CLE W 6-3 6.2Q 4 3 3 0 4 0 10 3 85 23 45 W(3-1) - 6.33 Jun. 19 @PHI L 4-3 6.0D 3 1 1 1 3 3 9 6 95 22 62 - - 4.34 Jun. 29 CHC W 5-4 6.0W 6 4 4 2 2 2 12 10 105 27 44 W(7-5) - 4.52 Jul. 31 @MIN L 2-1 6.0D 3 1 1 0 4 5 3 10 103 25 63 - - 5.27 Sep. 2 @TOR W 5-3 6.1Q 8 3 3 0 1 7 12 3 102 28 51 W(10-10) - 4.84 Sep. 7 CLE L 4-2 6.0Q 7 4 4 2 3 5 7 8 105 26 44 L(10-11) - 4.89 Sep. 24 BOS L 4-2 6.2W 4 4 4 0 5 2 8 7 99 24 42 L(12-12) - 4.70 Apr. 5 @KC L 5-2 5.0P 6 5 4 1 4 0 9 9 93 28 33 L(0-1) - 7.20 Apr. 20 DET W 12-5 5.0P 6 5 5 0 5 2 8 7 105 24 32 W(2-1) - 6.75 May. 1 SEA W 9-2 5.0D 3 0 0 0 1 3 7 3 76 17 63 W(4-1) - 5.34 May. 6 @TEX L 6-5 5.1W 6 4 4 1 3 2 6 6 105 26 39 - - 5.55 May. 11 @LAA L 6-3 5.0P 9 6 5 1 2 2 5 10 84 24 27 L(4-2) - 5.95 Aug. 23 TB L 8-2 5.1P 6 5 5 2 4 4 8 4 89 25 36 L(8-10) - 5.17 Sep. 18 KC W 3-1 5.1D 3 1 1 0 3 2 5 8 110 21 57 W(12-11) - 4.65 Apr. 10 @DET W 7-5 4.1P 10 5 5 3 2 1 8 9 91 25 22 - - 8.68 May. 17 LAA L 8-4 4.1P 7 5 3 0 4 3 6 5 84 24 32 L(4-3) - 5.98 Jun. 14 @CHC L 8-4 4.0P 7 5 5 2 0 4 7 3 67 19 32 L(6-5) - 4.56 Jul. 24 MIN L 8-1 4.1P 9 7 7 2 3 2 6 7 79 23 16 L(8-8) - 5.46 Jul. 19 @BAL L 10-4 3.0P 8 8 8 1 2 2 8 5 78 19 11 L(8-7) - 5.12 Aug. 17 @OAK L 9-2 3.2P 6 6 3 1 2 0 4 7 62 16 26 L(8-9) - 5.04 Dominant:14, Just Quality:7, Just Winnable:3, Poor:10

Jose Contreras 2005 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Sep. 23 MIN W 3-1 9.0D 6 1 1 0 1 9 11 7 111 32 79 W(14-7) - 3.66 Oct. 16 @LAA W 6-3 9.0D 5 3 3 0 2 2 14 7 114 34 65 W(2-1) - 2.88 May. 5 KC W 2-1 8.0D 4 1 1 1 1 6 9 10 102 28 75 W(1-0) - 2.60 Aug. 21 NYY W 6-2 8.0D 11 2 1 0 0 5 15 6 112 33 59 W(8-7) - 4.08 Sep. 18 @MIN W 2-1 8.0D 5 1 1 0 2 2 14 7 93 29 68 W(13-7) - 3.79 Sep. 28 @DET W 8-2 8.0D 7 2 2 1 0 9 11 8 101 29 69 W(15-7) - 3.61 Oct. 11 LAA L 3-2 8.1D 7 3 3 1 0 4 17 8 102 32 61 L(1-1) - 2.81 May. 21 @CHC W 5-3 7.0D 4 1 1 0 1 4 10 8 78 25 68 W(2-1) - 3.23 May. 26 @LAA L 3-2 7.0D 4 3 3 1 1 9 4 7 95 26 65 L(2-2) - 3.30 Jul. 14 @CLE W 1-0 7.0D 3 0 0 0 3 7 4 9 97 26 75 W(5-5) - 3.99 Aug. 9 @NYY W 2-1 7.0D 3 0 0 0 2 6 11 4 102 27 75 W(7-6) - 4.18 Aug. 27 @SEA W 4-3 7.0Q 5 3 3 0 0 7 9 6 97 27 62 W(9-7) - 4.07 Sep. 1 DET W 12-3 7.0Q 5 3 3 2 0 5 10 10 86 25 60 W(10-7) - 4.06 Sep. 7 KC W 1-0 7.2D 6 0 0 0 5 4 8 9 104 33 66 W(11-7) - 3.88 Oct. 4 BOS W 14-2 7.2D 8 2 2 0 0 6 13 5 100 31 61 W(1-0) - 2.35 Oct. 22 HOU W 5-3 7.0Q 6 3 3 1 0 2 11 8 82 29 55 W(3-1) - 3.09 Apr. 7 CLE L 11-5 6.0D 4 1 1 0 2 4 14 3 96 25 62 - - 1.50 Apr. 13 @CLE W 5-4 6.2Q 5 4 4 1 5 3 4 11 104 29 46 - - 3.55 Apr. 29 DET L 3-2 6.0D 3 1 1 1 3 6 7 3 113 25 65 - - 3.04 May. 15 BAL L 6-2 6.1W 7 5 4 2 1 4 11 5 100 27 44 L(1-1) - 3.52 Jun. 1 LAA L 10-7 6.0W 5 4 2 1 3 4 12 6 103 27 51 - - 3.27 Jun. 7 @COL W 2-1 6.0D 5 1 1 0 2 6 6 9 104 25 62 W(3-2) - 3.13 Jun. 13 ARI L 8-1 6.0P 9 8 8 4 3 4 5 11 118 30 23 L(3-3) - 3.81 Jun. 19 LAD W 4-3 6.2Q 6 3 3 0 4 5 8 6 102 29 51 - - 3.83 Jun. 25 CHC L 6-2 6.1P 8 6 6 1 2 3 8 9 105 30 34 L(3-4) - 4.15 Jul. 6 TB W 7-2 6.0D 6 2 2 2 3 1 6 10 85 26 50 W(4-5) - 4.26 Jul. 30 @BAL W 9-6 6.0P 6 6 6 1 3 3 12 6 104 26 36 - - 4.58 Aug. 15 MIN L 4-2 6.2Q 8 4 4 0 2 5 12 4 105 30 45 L(7-7) - 4.24 May. 10 @TB L 7-6 5.0W 5 4 4 1 5 3 6 8 90 27 39 - - 3.18 Jul. 19 DET L 7-1 5.2P 8 7 7 1 0 4 10 5 94 25 29 L(5-6) - 4.34 Jul. 24 BOS W 6-4 5.2Q 8 3 3 2 2 6 3 10 116 26 45 W(6-6) - 4.36 Aug. 4 TOR W 5-4 5.0W 5 3 0 0 4 4 9 6 102 25 51 - - 4.41 Sep. 13 @KC W 6-4 5.2W 5 4 3 0 3 6 6 6 90 24 48 W(12-7) - 3.91 Apr. 18 MIN W 5-4 4.2W 6 3 2 0 4 2 8 6 104 24 40 - - 3.64 Jul. 1 @OAK L 6-2 4.1P 4 4 4 0 7 2 6 6 97 24 34 L(3-5) - 4.34 Apr. 23 @KC W 3-2 3.1W 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 3 61 13 59 - - 3.48 Dominant:17, Just Quality:7, Just Winnable:7, Poor:5 Jose Contreras 2004 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Jul. 15 @DET W 5-1 8.0D 4 1 1 0 1 7 9 9 111 29 76 W(7-3) - 5.17 Aug. 8 CLE W 3-2 8.0D 5 1 1 0 1 9 8 8 108 29 76 - - 5.17 Oct. 3 @KC W 5-0 8.0D 2 0 0 0 2 4 11 8 101 27 80 W(13-9) - 5.50 Jun. 10 COL W 10-4 7.0Q 5 4 4 3 2 6 11 8 114 29 55 W(3-2) - 6.75 Jul. 8 TB W 7-1 7.2D 3 1 1 0 3 3 7 12 100 27 64 W(6-3) - 5.64 Jul. 20 @TB W 4-2 7.0D 4 2 1 0 2 3 10 7 92 26 64 W(8-3) - 4.84 Jul. 29 BAL L 9-1 7.2W 8 7 7 1 2 7 7 8 104 29 35 L(8-5) - 5.65 Aug. 18 DET W 9-2 7.2D 6 2 2 0 4 6 12 2 112 29 56 W(11-5) - 5.08 Aug. 28 @CLE W 5-3 7.2D 6 1 1 0 1 6 11 5 101 27 63 W(12-6) - 5.04 Sep. 18 DET W 9-8 7.0Q 6 4 4 2 5 6 10 7 119 30 50 - - 5.84 Apr. 28 OAK W 5-1 6.0D 4 1 1 1 1 4 4 12 105 23 63 W(1-2) - 7.41 May. 22 @TEX L 4-3 6.0D 3 1 1 1 2 7 5 7 100 25 67 - - 7.56 May. 27 @BAL W 18-5 6.0Q 8 3 3 2 4 4 10 9 112 31 44 W(2-2) - 6.97 Jun. 15 @ARI W 4-2 6.1D 5 2 2 1 2 6 8 8 121 26 59 W(4-2) - 6.20 Jun. 20 @LAD L 5-4 6.0Q 7 4 4 1 0 5 8 7 96 25 47 L(4-3) - 6.18 Jun. 27 NYM W 8-1 6.0D 2 0 0 0 4 10 1 7 100 23 74 W(5-3) - 5.53 Aug. 3 @KC W 12-4 6.0W 5 4 2 1 1 3 8 9 93 24 52 W(9-5) - 5.49 Aug. 13 @BOS W 8-7 6.0Q 4 4 4 1 5 8 9 3 111 27 51 W(10-5) - 5.21 Sep. 23 KC W 7-6 6.2W 7 5 4 0 2 7 11 2 110 27 42 - - 5.86 Sep. 28 @DET L 6-4 6.2Q 7 3 2 2 4 7 5 8 97 28 48 - - 5.77 Apr. 9 CWS L 9-3 5.1P 6 5 5 2 3 5 4 9 105 25 38 L(0-1) - 8.44 Jul. 3 @NYM L 10-9 5.0P 8 7 7 3 1 4 8 7 76 23 26 - - 6.10 Jul. 25 @BOS L 9-6 5.1P 9 8 8 3 2 3 9 9 103 29 19 L(8-4) - 5.36 Aug. 23 @DET L 7-0 5.0P 6 5 5 1 7 4 6 4 110 26 32 L(11-6) - 5.23 Sep. 2 OAK L 4-2 5.1P 4 4 4 1 4 4 5 5 105 24 44 L(12-7) - 5.10 Apr. 23 BOS L 11-2 3.1P 5 5 5 2 4 3 4 6 93 19 29 L(0-2) - 10.64 Sep. 12 @LAA L 11-0 3.0P 10 7 7 0 1 2 6 4 60 19 12 L(12-9) - 5.88 May. 4 @OAK W 10-8 2.0P 4 7 6 2 4 2 3 3 61 13 20 - - 9.47 Apr. 18 @BOS W 7-3 2.1P 6 3 3 0 2 3 2 4 63 14 34 - - 9.39 Sep. 7 @TEX L 10-3 2.2P 5 8 8 1 5 2 2 4 68 16 10 L(12-8) - 5.55 Jun. 2 BAL W 6-5 1.2P 2 5 1 0 3 0 4 2 44 9 33 - - 7.11 Dominant:11, Just Quality:6, Just Winnable:3, Poor:11 Jose Contreras 2003 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Sep. 23 @CWS W 7-0 8.0D 4 0 0 0 1 9 5 9 105 30 82 W(7-2) - 3.39 May. 30 @DET W 6-0 7.0D 2 0 0 0 1 6 8 6 81 24 78 W(2-1) - 5.40 Jun. 5 @CIN W 10-2 7.0D 5 2 2 1 3 6 10 2 108 29 62 W(3-1) - 4.62 Aug. 24 BAL W 7-0 7.0D 3 0 0 0 1 5 8 6 94 25 75 W(4-1) - 3.62 Sep. 4 @TOR W 3-2 7.0D 4 2 1 1 3 7 9 6 116 27 67 W(5-2) - 4.47 Sep. 14 TB L 5-2 7.0D 5 2 2 1 2 8 11 4 110 29 65 - - 4.17 Sep. 19 @TB W 2-1 7.0D 4 1 1 0 1 4 10 7 102 27 68 W(6-2) - 3.84 Sep. 9 DET W 4-2 5.2Q 5 2 2 0 4 6 7 2 94 22 48 - - 4.40 May. 24 TOR L 5-2 4.0Q 1 0 0 0 1 4 7 1 52 13 - - - 8.74 Aug. 29 @BOS L 10-5 3.0P 6 7 7 1 3 6 5 2 77 18 22 L(4-2) - 5.09 Sep. 27 BAL W 6-2 2.0W 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 29 7 - - H(1) 3.30 Dominant:7, Just Quality:2, Just Winnable:1, Poor:1

You're probably asking why am I fixating on Javier Vazquez? Because the White Sox own his rights for 3 yrs. When a player exercises his right to demand a trade the team that acquires him owns his rights for the full length of the contract. In Javier's case the contract expires after 2007 but it was originally a 3 yr deal so he will become an RFA (arbitration player) for 2008. It's worth mentioning as well that if Kenny had not made this trade Vazquez would be an Indian right now. Kenny beat them to the punch. Javier Vazquez 2005 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* May. 1 @SD W 5-2 9.0D 6 2 2 1 0 8 9 12 115 33 75 W(3-2) - 5.11 May. 22 @DET W 1-0 9.0D 5 0 0 0 0 7 11 8 113 32 84 W(5-3) - 3.49 Jul. 6 STL L 2-1 9.0D 3 2 2 1 0 8 8 6 113 29 81 L(7-8) - 4.54 Apr. 25 @LAD W 4-2 8.0D 5 2 2 2 2 9 6 4 111 29 71 W(2-2) - 6.11 Jun. 14 @CWS W 10-4 8.0D 7 3 3 2 1 10 6 8 113 31 65 W(7-4) - 4.30 Jul. 14 @SD W 6-0 8.0D 4 0 0 0 1 4 10 10 106 28 77 W(8-8) - 4.25 Jul. 24 ATL W 3-2 8.0D 3 2 2 2 2 11 4 5 112 28 77 W(9-9) - 4.37 Aug. 20 @CIN W 6-2 8.0D 5 1 1 0 1 6 12 3 77 28 73 W(10-12) - 4.67 Oct. 1 @SF W 2-1 8.0D 7 1 1 1 3 4 14 6 117 32 65 - - 4.42 Apr. 20 @SF W 2-1 7.0D 8 0 0 0 2 2 12 6 90 28 61 W(1-2) - 7.65 May. 6 PIT W 8-4 7.0D 7 2 2 0 0 8 12 5 94 28 63 W(4-2) - 4.71 May. 11 WAS W 3-2 7.0D 6 2 2 0 0 7 7 7 100 28 64 - - 4.41 May. 17 @HOU L 3-0 7.0D 7 1 1 0 0 5 11 10 102 29 64 L(4-3) - 4.03 May. 28 LAD W 5-4 7.0Q 10 4 4 1 0 4 9 11 94 31 45 - - 3.65 Jul. 29 @CHC L 4-3 7.0D 5 2 2 1 2 4 7 8 113 28 61 - - 4.29 Aug. 25 NYM L 3-1 7.0D 4 2 2 1 2 6 12 4 99 27 65 L(10-13) - 4.59 Sep. 13 MIL L 3-1 7.0Q 7 3 3 2 2 6 10 8 121 29 55 L(10-15) - 4.71 Sep. 20 LAD W 4-1 7.2D 4 1 1 1 1 7 9 8 122 28 73 W(11-15) - 4.58 Sep. 25 SD W 4-3 7.0Q 2 3 3 1 1 12 4 6 105 25 72 - - 4.55 Apr. 14 @WAS L 5-3 6.0W 8 5 5 1 1 8 4 10 94 27 43 L(0-2) - 11.77 Jun. 9 MIN W 4-3 6.0Q 3 3 3 2 3 3 7 8 112 24 54 W(6-4) - 4.39 Jun. 25 DET L 5-1 6.1P 10 5 4 0 1 5 15 4 100 29 39 L(7-6) - 4.53 Jul. 1 @LAD L 7-0 6.2P 6 6 6 2 2 10 5 7 105 29 46 L(7-7) - 4.75 Sep. 6 @PIT W 4-2 6.0D 12 2 2 2 1 4 8 9 104 30 43 - - 4.74 Apr. 9 LAD L 12-10 5.1P 5 6 5 1 3 7 4 8 103 25 40 - - 15.43 Jun. 20 @SF L 8-3 5.0W 10 4 4 0 1 5 8 4 112 25 35 L(7-5) - 4.45 Jul. 19 FLA L 6-3 5.0P 9 6 6 3 5 2 12 6 90 27 22 L(8-9) - 4.50 Aug. 3 HOU L 7-0 5.2P 9 5 2 1 2 5 9 5 108 28 40 L(9-10) - 4.25 Aug. 9 @FLA L 5-0 5.0P 8 5 5 0 4 3 7 3 110 28 30 L(9-11) - 4.40 Aug. 31 @SD L 9-5 5.1P 10 8 7 2 2 5 7 10 94 28 21 L(10-14) - 4.80 Jun. 4 @PHI L 10-6 4.0P 10 8 8 2 0 2 6 7 78 22 12 L(5-4) - 4.39 Aug. 14 @ATL L 13-8 2.0P 8 9 9 3 1 3 1 7 54 16 6 L(9-12) - 4.85 Apr. 4 CHC L 16-6 1.2P 10 7 7 0 0 2 3 4 42 15 9 L(0-1) - 37.80 Dominant: 17, Just Quality: 3, Just Winnable: 3, Poor: 10 Javier Vazquez 2004 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Apr. 8 CWS W 3-1 8.0D 3 1 1 0 2 5 10 9 106 28 75 W(1-0) - 1.13 Apr. 21 @CWS W 3-1 8.0D 5 1 1 1 2 6 13 6 113 31 72 W(2-1) - 2.53 Apr. 30 KC W 5-2 8.0D 2 2 2 1 0 5 1 18 91 27 75 W(3-2) - 2.55 Jun. 13 SD W 6-5 8.0D 6 2 2 1 0 8 8 11 114 31 70 - - 3.43 Aug. 6 TOR W 11-4 8.0D 6 3 3 1 0 3 12 10 92 30 61 W(13-6) - 4.12 May. 12 LAA L 11-2 7.1Q 6 5 5 2 2 4 9 7 100 29 48 L(3-4) - 4.10 May. 18 @LAA L 1-0 7.0D 5 0 0 0 2 5 8 8 113 27 70 - - 3.58 Jun. 3 BAL W 5-2 7.0D 5 2 2 1 1 2 8 12 118 27 60 W(6-4) - 3.75 Jun. 8 COL W 2-1 7.0Q 5 1 1 0 0 6 11 6 95 26 69 W(7-4) - 3.54 Jun. 24 @BAL W 5-2 7.0D 9 2 2 1 2 2 9 9 106 30 51 W(8-5) - 3.38 Jun. 29 BOS W 11-3 7.2Q 7 3 3 3 1 8 4 11 115 28 55 W(9-5) - 3.42 Aug. 17 @MIN L 8-2 7.2W 9 6 6 2 2 2 6 14 112 32 32 L(13-7) - 4.29 Aug. 24 @CLE W 5-4 7.0Q 6 4 4 1 3 4 10 8 111 28 50 - - 4.32 Sep. 5 BAL W 4-3 7.0Q 6 3 3 1 3 8 7 7 118 29 58 - - 4.59 Sep. 15 @KC W 3-0 7.0D 3 0 0 0 4 7 8 5 111 27 74 W(14-9) - 4.75 Sep. 20 TOR L 6-3 7.2Q 9 4 4 1 4 3 12 5 115 32 39 L(14-10) - 4.77 Sep. 30 MIN W 6-4 7.2Q 7 4 4 2 1 4 10 11 95 28 47 - - 4.91 Apr. 25 BOS L 2-0 6.0D 4 2 2 1 1 8 3 7 102 24 63 L(2-2) - 2.63 May. 6 @OAK L 7-4 6.2W 6 7 7 1 4 4 8 9 101 27 29 L(3-3) - 3.73 May. 23 @TEX W 8-3 6.0Q 6 3 3 0 1 6 5 9 99 26 53 W(4-4) - 3.67 May. 28 @TB W 7-5 6.0W 8 4 4 1 2 2 7 11 102 28 40 W(5-4) - 3.88 Jul. 9 TB W 5-4 6.2Q 4 3 3 2 5 9 4 6 111 25 53 W(10-5) - 3.57 Jul. 21 TOR W 10-3 6.0Q 9 3 3 0 2 4 9 8 112 30 44 W(11-6) - 4.05 Jul. 26 @TOR W 6-5 6.1Q 5 3 3 2 1 4 7 8 94 24 54 - - 4.06 Apr. 16 @BOS L 6-2 5.1P 9 6 4 3 1 5 8 6 97 26 34 L(1-1) - 3.38 Jun. 18 @LAD L 6-3 5.0P 9 5 2 0 1 5 6 8 98 26 39 L(7-5) - 3.44 Jul. 4 @NYM L 6-5 5.0W 6 4 3 1 5 5 6 6 113 27 41 - - 3.50 Jul. 31 BAL W 6-4 5.1W 4 4 4 1 2 3 5 10 85 23 45 W(12-6) - 4.16 Sep. 25 @BOS L 12-5 5.2P 7 5 5 1 2 4 5 8 97 24 32 - - 4.89 Oct. 9 @MIN W 6-5 5.0P 7 5 5 1 2 6 4 7 98 25 37 - - 9.00 Oct. 16 @BOS W 19-8 4.1P 7 4 4 1 2 4 2 7 96 20 - W(1-0) - 8.68 Jul. 16 @DET L 8-0 4.1P 9 8 8 1 0 5 4 6 78 22 18 L(10-6) - 4.02 Sep. 10 @BAL L 14-8 2.1P 5 8 8 1 2 3 2 3 54 15 16 L(13-9) - 4.94 Oct. 20 BOS L 10-3 2.0P 2 3 3 2 5 2 1 5 55 13 - - - 9.53 Aug. 31 CLE L 22-0 1.1P 5 6 6 0 2 1 1 5 41 12 19 L(13-8) - 4.62 Dominant: 10, Just Quality: 11, Just Winnable: 5, Poor: 9 Javier Vazquez 2003 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Jul. 18 @PHI W 3-1 9.0D 9 1 1 1 0 7 11 4 118 33 72 W(7-6) - 3.75 Aug. 2 MIL W 7-1 9.0D 8 1 0 0 0 11 7 9 119 33 80 W(9-7) - 3.55 Aug. 18 SF W 4-0 9.0D 3 0 0 0 3 7 6 12 123 32 85 W(11-8) - 3.44 Aug. 23 @SD L 1-0 9.0D 3 0 0 0 1 10 3 13 99 32 90 - - 3.27 Jul. 23 NYM W 5-2 8.0D 6 2 2 0 1 11 8 7 128 30 72 W(8-6) - 3.67 Aug. 28 PHI W 4-0 8.0D 4 0 0 0 3 10 7 9 129 31 81 W(12-8) - 3.14 Sep. 2 @PHI L 5-3 8.0Q 8 5 5 1 3 5 15 7 136 35 48 L(12-9) - 3.24 Sep. 23 @ATL L 2-0 8.2D 5 2 2 0 2 5 11 11 106 31 64 L(13-12) - 3.24 Apr. 9 @CHC L 3-0 7.0D 5 2 2 1 0 14 3 6 96 25 73 L(1-1) - 1.42 Apr. 19 CIN W 9-5 7.0Q 5 4 4 2 1 11 3 7 110 27 61 W(2-1) - 3.16 Apr. 24 ARI W 1-0 7.0D 6 0 0 0 1 9 5 7 121 27 73 W(3-1) - 2.48 Apr. 29 @MIL W 3-2 7.0D 3 2 2 2 0 12 2 9 120 24 75 - - 2.50 May. 20 FLA W 6-4 7.0Q 7 3 2 1 1 3 12 5 127 28 55 W(4-2) - 3.32 May. 25 PHI W 5-3 7.0D 5 2 2 1 1 8 3 12 120 27 66 W(5-2) - 3.25 Jun. 5 LAA W 8-7 7.0D 3 2 2 2 2 11 5 7 106 26 72 - - 3.51 Jun. 25 PIT L 6-5 7.0Q 6 3 3 2 1 8 5 9 94 26 60 - - 4.03 Jul. 11 FLA L 5-4 7.0Q 7 3 3 2 3 7 7 8 126 31 55 - - 3.95 Sep. 13 NYM L 5-4 7.0Q 7 5 5 1 2 7 7 8 92 30 48 L(12-11) - 3.38 Sep. 18 @NYM W 1-0 7.0D 3 0 0 0 0 12 6 5 126 25 83 W(13-11) - 3.27 Apr. 3 @ATL W 4-0 6.2D 7 0 0 0 2 5 8 9 82 26 58 W(1-0) - 0.00 Apr. 14 NYM W 5-3 6.0Q 5 3 3 1 1 7 6 7 124 24 56 - - 2.41 May. 4 @STL L 6-2 6.0W 6 5 5 1 2 6 3 11 99 27 44 L(3-2) - 3.15 May. 10 LAD W 6-5 6.1W 11 5 5 1 1 5 12 6 106 31 35 - - 3.64 May. 30 @PHI L 12-5 6.2P 5 7 5 1 6 3 7 8 131 29 32 L(5-3) - 3.60 Jun. 10 @SEA W 7-3 6.0Q 8 3 3 0 2 7 9 5 114 28 49 W(6-3) - 3.58 Jun. 15 @OAK L 9-1 6.1W 5 5 5 2 4 5 2 13 112 28 44 L(6-4) - 3.82 Jun. 20 TOR L 8-4 6.0W 9 5 5 3 1 5 7 7 98 26 38 L(6-5) - 4.04 Jun. 30 @NYM L 3-1 6.0Q 7 3 3 0 3 5 5 9 118 27 48 L(6-6) - 4.05 Jul. 28 ATL L 10-8 6.2P 12 8 4 1 1 3 12 9 129 33 23 L(8-7) - 3.77 Aug. 8 @HOU L 5-1 6.0Q 4 3 3 0 3 3 10 6 92 23 52 L(9-8) - 3.59 Aug. 13 COL W 6-5 6.0W 6 5 3 2 2 4 4 12 95 26 46 W(10-8) - 3.62 Sep. 7 FLA L 3-1 6.0Q 6 3 3 0 1 7 6 6 117 26 54 L(12-10) - 3.27 Jul. 5 @ATL L 3-2 5.0Q 2 1 1 0 2 5 5 5 72 18 62 - - 3.96 May. 15 @COL L 4-2 3.1W 2 0 0 0 1 3 4 3 56 13 58 - - 3.42 Dominant: 14, Just Quality: 12, Just Winnable: 6, Poor: 2 Javier Vazquez 2002 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Apr. 24 MIL W 5-4 9.0D 9 3 2 0 1 2 17 4 92 34 60 - - 3.34 Apr. 30 @HOU W 5-1 9.0D 5 1 1 0 0 9 11 11 117 33 82 W(1-1) - 2.86 Jun. 5 PIT W 3-1 9.0D 3 1 1 0 0 10 12 5 123 30 87 W(4-2) - 3.12 Apr. 18 NYM L 1-0 8.0D 5 1 1 0 0 6 5 14 99 29 74 L(0-1) - 3.81 May. 10 SF W 6-3 8.0D 6 2 2 1 1 4 11 10 100 30 65 W(2-2) - 3.03 May. 15 @SD L 2-1 8.0D 3 0 0 0 3 7 11 8 110 30 80 - - 2.67 May. 21 ATL W 5-4 8.0D 9 3 2 0 1 6 14 9 123 35 59 - - 2.63 Jun. 21 CLE W 3-1 8.0D 5 1 1 0 4 6 7 10 123 31 70 W(5-3) - 3.21 Sep. 5 PHI L 4-1 8.0Q 10 4 4 2 0 7 8 15 121 34 53 L(8-13) - 4.11 Sep. 27 CIN W 4-3 8.0D 7 3 3 2 0 9 11 4 105 29 65 - - 3.91 May. 5 @ARI L 5-2 7.1Q 10 5 4 1 2 6 8 8 111 33 44 L(1-2) - 3.16 May. 26 PHI W 6-5 7.2Q 10 5 5 1 3 3 8 13 111 32 34 - - 2.96 May. 31 @PHI W 8-7 7.0W 9 6 6 3 1 5 6 12 111 30 39 W(3-2) - 3.34 Jun. 16 TOR W 6-5 7.2Q 8 4 4 1 2 3 10 14 118 30 43 - - 3.37 Jul. 1 @ATL L 7-5 7.0W 7 6 5 2 2 2 9 13 99 30 41 L(5-5) - 3.76 Jul. 14 ATL W 10-3 7.0D 8 2 2 0 2 5 8 13 95 30 56 W(7-5) - 3.63 Jul. 19 @FLA L 4-2 7.0Q 5 4 4 0 3 7 11 3 108 28 55 L(7-6) - 3.70 Jul. 19 @FLA L 4-2 7.0Q 5 4 4 0 3 7 11 3 108 28 55 L(7-6) - 3.70 Jul. 24 @NYM W 2-1 7.2D 5 1 1 0 4 5 7 7 118 28 61 W(8-6) - 3.60 Jul. 30 ARI W 5-4 7.0Q 8 3 3 0 1 5 5 10 115 31 53 - - 3.61 Aug. 15 LAD L 1-0 7.0D 6 1 1 0 0 5 7 8 84 25 66 L(8-9) - 3.77 Sep. 10 @CHC W 6-2 7.0D 6 2 2 1 3 10 9 5 117 30 64 W(9-13) - 4.06 Sep. 15 NYM W 10-1 7.0D 4 1 1 1 0 9 3 10 93 24 74 W(10-13) - 3.97 Sep. 21 @NYM L 6-3 7.0D 8 2 2 1 0 4 7 9 118 28 57 - - 3.93 Apr. 2 FLA W 7-6 6.2D 5 2 2 1 1 4 7 8 90 23 54 - - 3.18 Apr. 7 @CIN L 6-5 6.0Q 9 3 2 1 1 4 10 9 100 29 47 - - 3.09 Apr. 13 @NYM W 9-8 6.1W 5 6 6 2 1 4 7 9 104 25 42 - - 5.00 Aug. 10 @MIL L 5-2 6.0Q 9 4 4 0 1 7 8 7 117 28 44 L(8-8) - 3.87 Aug. 31 ATL L 5-3 6.0W 7 4 3 2 5 7 7 6 123 33 46 L(8-12) - 4.10 Jun. 10 @DET L 6-4 5.0P 10 6 3 2 0 5 12 4 97 24 34 L(4-3) - 3.23 Jun. 26 @PIT L 7-4 5.2P 10 7 7 2 1 2 5 9 86 24 17 L(5-4) - 3.61 Jul. 6 @PHI W 5-3 5.0D 5 1 1 0 4 3 3 8 90 23 52 W(6-5) - 3.69 Aug. 25 @SF L 8-4 5.1P 8 6 5 0 1 1 5 15 98 28 30 L(8-11) - 4.08 Aug. 4 HOU L 5-4 4.0P 10 5 5 0 1 4 5 5 63 22 25 L(8-7) - 3.80 Aug. 20 @COL L 8-6 3.0P 9 6 5 2 0 3 5 3 65 18 22 L(8-10) - 3.96 Dominant: 17, Just Quality: 9, Just Winnable: 4, Poor: 5 4 yr totals: Dom 58, Just Qual: 35, Just Winnable: 18, Poor: 26 Not many starters can match or exceed that. Note: There were borderline cases for JQ & JW. For a typical W case, if the strikeouts were there or the score was close a JQ was awarded.

Freddy Garcia 2005 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Oct. 15 @LAA W 8-2 9.0D 6 2 2 0 1 5 14 9 116 33 71 W(2-0) - 3.21 Apr. 11 @CLE W 2-1 8.0D 4 1 1 0 2 4 12 9 110 28 72 W(1-0) - 1.93 May. 25 @LAA W 4-2 8.0D 7 2 2 0 0 6 12 8 108 30 66 W(5-3) - 3.41 Jun. 6 @COL W 9-3 8.0D 2 3 3 1 0 10 5 9 103 27 76 W(6-3) - 3.51 Jun. 18 LAD W 5-3 8.0Q 6 3 3 1 6 2 12 11 120 34 54 - - 3.75 Jun. 30 @DET W 6-1 9.0D 5 1 0 0 1 8 13 5 96 34 82 W(8-3) - 3.30 Jul. 20 DET L 8-6 8.0W 12 6 6 2 3 5 13 8 112 36 36 L(9-4) - 3.60 Aug. 10 @NYY W 2-1 8.0D 6 1 0 0 1 5 13 8 104 30 72 - - 3.64 Aug. 23 @MIN L 1-0 8.0D 1 1 1 1 2 3 16 6 95 27 77 L(11-6) - 3.54 Sep. 24 MIN W 8-1 8.0D 4 1 1 0 2 2 17 4 105 28 70 W(13-8) - 3.91 Apr. 17 SEA L 5-4 7.0W 9 5 5 2 2 2 11 7 108 29 39 L(1-1) - 3.43 Apr. 22 @KC W 8-2 7.0D 4 2 2 0 0 3 12 5 96 25 64 W(2-1) - 3.21 Apr. 27 @OAK L 2-1 7.0D 4 1 1 1 2 4 4 14 108 26 67 - - 2.83 May. 20 @CHC W 5-1 7.0D 5 1 0 0 1 3 12 10 102 29 67 W(4-3) - 3.56 Jun. 24 CHC W 12-2 7.0D 3 1 1 1 1 8 6 9 93 25 74 W(7-3) - 3.58 Jul. 5 TB W 6-4 7.0Q 8 4 4 1 2 4 8 8 107 30 47 - - 3.40 Jul. 15 @CLE W 7-1 7.0D 6 1 1 0 3 4 14 1 103 28 62 W(9-3) - 3.41 Jul. 31 @BAL W 9-4 7.0Q 10 4 3 2 2 4 14 10 112 34 45 W(11-4) - 3.77 Aug. 5 SEA L 4-2 7.0Q 7 4 4 1 3 4 11 3 111 29 48 L(11-5) - 3.83 Aug. 16 MIN L 9-4 7.0Q 9 3 3 1 1 3 16 5 112 29 49 - - 3.65 Sep. 2 DET W 9-1 7.0D 2 1 1 0 1 7 9 4 84 24 75 W(12-7) - 3.75 Sep. 8 KC L 4-2 7.0Q 8 3 3 1 2 3 13 9 100 30 50 L(12-8) - 3.76 Sep. 29 @DET W 4-2 7.0D 8 2 2 0 0 5 12 8 90 29 58 W(14-8) - 3.87 Oct. 26 @HOU W 1-0 7.0D 4 0 0 0 3 7 10 2 107 27 73 W(3-0) - 2.14 Apr. 6 CLE W 4-3 6.0D 5 2 2 0 3 6 8 6 109 27 57 - - 3.00 May. 4 KC W 4-2 6.1D 8 2 2 0 2 4 13 5 107 28 51 W(3-1) - 2.83 May. 9 @TB L 4-2 6.1Q 8 4 4 0 3 5 11 4 100 29 43 L(3-2) - 3.21 May. 14 BAL L 9-6 6.0P 10 7 7 2 3 7 9 3 112 31 28 L(3-3) - 4.03 Jun. 12 @SD W 8-5 6.0W 10 5 5 1 1 2 13 5 107 29 33 - - 3.78 Jul. 10 OAK L 9-8 6.0W 9 4 4 2 3 4 8 10 102 28 39 - - 3.53 Jul. 25 @KC W 14-6 6.0W 12 5 5 1 0 7 9 6 97 28 35 W(10-4) - 3.76 Sep. 19 CLE L 7-5 6.1W 7 4 4 2 2 3 11 7 108 27 44 - - 4.01 May. 31 LAA W 5-4 5.1W 6 3 3 1 2 3 7 5 94 22 45 - - 3.53 Sep. 14 @KC L 10-9 5.1P 9 7 7 1 2 2 11 9 96 27 22 - - 3.96 Oct. 7 @BOS W 5-3 5.0W 5 3 3 3 4 1 6 8 98 22 42 W(1-0) - 5.40 Aug. 28 @SEA L 9-2 4.1P 11 8 8 1 2 4 8 6 89 26 11 L(11-7) - 3.84 Dominant:18, Just Quality:7, Just Winnable:8, Poor:3 Freddy Garcia 2004 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Jun. 25 SD L 3-2 9.0D 4 3 3 0 3 5 7 10 96 31 69 L(4-7) - 3.20 Apr. 24 @TEX L 3-0 8.2D 8 3 3 1 1 3 16 8 108 32 53 L(0-1) - 2.60 Apr. 30 @DET W 3-1 8.0D 4 1 1 0 4 4 12 4 114 30 70 - - 2.27 Jun. 4 CWS L 4-2 8.2Q 7 4 4 1 2 6 10 8 111 31 53 L(3-4) - 3.18 Jun. 9 HOU L 3-0 8.0D 7 3 3 0 3 9 7 10 117 34 62 L(3-5) - 3.20 Jun. 15 @MIL L 3-0 8.2D 8 3 3 1 2 8 9 6 114 34 57 L(3-6) - 3.23 Jul. 6 LAA L 6-2 8.0Q 7 4 4 1 2 7 11 7 118 32 57 L(5-8) - 3.42 Apr. 8 LAA L 5-1 7.0D 4 0 0 0 2 7 5 10 96 27 74 - - 0.00 Apr. 19 OAK W 2-1 7.0D 3 0 0 0 2 7 4 13 115 27 76 - - 2.25 May. 6 MIN W 2-1 7.0D 6 1 1 0 1 8 12 6 109 29 68 W(1-1) - 2.11 May. 12 @MIN L 4-3 7.1Q 7 4 3 1 2 4 9 11 118 33 52 L(1-2) - 2.34 May. 23 DET W 3-1 7.0D 4 1 1 0 4 7 7 7 114 28 68 W(2-3) - 2.71 Jul. 11 SEA W 4-3 7.2D 6 3 3 1 1 7 7 9 110 27 56 W(6-8) - 3.45 Jul. 17 @OAK W 5-2 7.2D 2 2 1 0 2 6 6 12 114 26 68 W(7-8) - 3.35 Jul. 22 @CLE W 3-0 7.0D 5 0 0 0 3 9 7 5 105 29 73 W(8-8) - 3.18 Jul. 27 MIN L 7-3 7.1Q 7 4 4 0 2 3 13 8 115 33 49 L(8-9) - 3.27 Aug. 1 @DET W 6-4 7.1Q 5 4 4 2 1 8 9 6 113 28 59 W(9-9) - 3.35 Aug. 7 CLE L 6-5 7.0Q 9 3 3 0 1 3 12 6 99 29 49 - - 3.37 Aug. 22 BOS L 6-5 7.0W 7 5 5 2 3 7 9 6 118 30 47 - - 3.84 Sep. 19 DET W 6-1 7.1D 6 1 1 0 3 8 12 4 121 30 67 W(12-11) - 3.86 Sep. 29 @DET W 11-2 7.0D 5 0 0 0 3 8 6 6 108 28 72 W(13-11) - 3.81 Apr. 14 @LAA L 6-5 6.0W 13 5 5 1 0 4 9 11 97 31 30 - - 3.46 May. 18 BAL L 7-2 6.0P 7 5 5 1 3 4 7 9 123 27 39 L(1-3) - 2.89 May. 29 @BOS W 5-4 6.2W 8 4 4 1 2 3 7 10 103 27 38 W(3-3) - 3.02 Aun. 20 @PIT W 5-4 6.0Q 6 2 2 1 1 3 11 7 75 25 54 W(4-6) - 3.21 Jun. 30 @MIN W 9-6 6.0Q 7 5 4 3 0 9 9 4 105 26 49 W(5-7) - 3.35 Aug. 12 KC W 3-2 6.0D 7 2 2 0 0 7 8 5 87 23 57 W(10-9) - 3.36 Sep. 8 @TEX W 5-2 5.0Q 3 1 1 0 2 8 4 3 88 20 63 W(11-10) - 3.79 Sep. 14 @MIN L 10-2 5.1P 3 6 6 0 5 2 6 6 96 23 35 L(11-11) - 3.97 Sep. 24 KC L 8-6 5.0W 6 4 4 1 3 6 7 4 106 25 42 - - 3.95 Aug. 17 DET L 11-8 4.1P 11 9 9 4 1 4 4 6 77 23 8 L(10-10) - 3.74 Dominant:15, Just Quality:9, Just Winnable:4, Poor:3 Freddy Garcia 2003 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Jun. 8 @NYM W 13-1 9.0D 6 1 1 1 1 7 7 11 117 35 77 W(6-6) - 5.00 Jun. 18 LAA W 2-0 8.0D 5 0 0 0 3 3 11 9 102 30 72 W(8-6) - 4.30 Aug. 17 BOS W 3-1 8.2D 4 1 1 1 2 8 8 9 115 29 73 W(11-12) - 5.08 Sep. 13 LAA W 5-1 8.0D 6 0 0 0 3 5 7 11 123 29 72 W(12-14) - 4.75 Sep. 23 @LAA L 2-1 8.0D 4 1 1 0 1 5 10 8 101 29 74 - - 4.52 Apr. 16 OAK L 4-1 7.0D 4 2 2 1 4 3 9 9 116 27 60 L(1-3) - 5.09 Apr. 27 DET W 4-3 7.0Q 4 3 3 2 1 6 9 8 100 27 62 W(2-3) - 4.21 May. 21 KC L 14-5 7.0P 7 7 7 3 3 4 11 10 109 30 36 L(3-6) - 5.90 May. 27 @KC W 15-7 7.0D 5 4 2 0 2 3 12 8 112 29 56 W(4-6) - 5.54 Jun. 1 @MIN W 9-5 7.0Q 7 4 4 2 3 7 7 9 106 30 51 W(5-6) - 5.50 Jun. 13 ATL W 2-1 7.1D 7 1 1 0 2 5 11 9 108 29 63 W(7-6) - 4.69 Jun. 24 @LAA W 6-4 7.2Q 9 3 3 1 1 4 4 11 108 28 47 W(9-6) - 4.28 Jul. 10 BAL L 4-1 7.0Q 7 3 3 2 0 4 14 6 114 29 55 L(9-8) - 4.41 Aug. 28 TB L 3-2 7.2D 4 2 1 1 2 4 6 12 102 27 62 - - 5.00 Sep. 7 @BAL L 2-1 7.0D 4 2 1 0 2 7 10 5 111 26 68 L(11-14) - 4.96 Apr. 6 @TEX W 11-2 6.1D 3 2 2 1 6 4 9 4 118 27 57 W(1-1) - 5.73 Apr. 22 CLE W 8-5 6.1D 7 1 1 1 2 1 7 12 116 28 54 - - 4.30 May. 3 @CWS W 12-2 6.0D 3 1 1 1 1 3 6 9 108 23 64 W(3-3) - 3.83 May. 14 @CLE L 7-2 6.0Q 8 7 4 1 2 5 11 7 116 32 37 L(3-5) - 5.47 Jun. 29 SD L 8-6 6.0D 5 1 1 1 3 5 9 6 101 25 60 - - 4.13 Jul. 4 @TEX L 7-3 6.1W 9 7 7 1 1 7 5 8 100 28 33 L(9-7) - 4.45 Jul. 27 TEX L 7-3 6.2W 10 6 5 0 2 3 6 10 102 30 28 L(9-10) - 5.17 Aug. 7 @CLE L 3-0 6.1D 6 2 2 2 0 7 8 7 109 25 60 L(9-12) - 5.45 Aug. 12 TOR W 3-1 6.1D 4 1 1 1 5 4 5 11 113 27 60 W(10-12) - 5.28 Apr. 1 @OAK L 5-0 5.2P 8 5 5 1 2 4 10 4 97 24 30 L(0-1) - 9.64 Apr. 11 TEX L 4-2 5.0w 7 4 4 1 1 4 11 6 104 23 40 L(1-2) - 6.19 Jul. 17 @KC L 7-1 5.0P 8 6 6 1 2 3 10 1 95 24 28 L(9-9) - 4.67 Aug. 23 @BOS L 7-6 5.0W 6 4 4 2 6 4 6 6 109 26 37 - - 5.15 Sep. 3 @TB L 7-0 5.0P 7 5 5 1 1 8 5 5 76 24 40 L(11-13) - 5.11 Sep. 18 @TEX L 2-1 4.0Q 1 0 0 0 1 3 4 4 56 12 62 - - 4.66 May. 8 NYY L 16-5 3.2P 7 9 9 0 2 1 5 4 58 18 7 L(3-4) - 5.40 Jul. 22 @MIN W 10-8 3.2P 7 7 7 0 2 2 7 4 76 18 16 - - 5.05 Aug. 1 CWS L 12-1 2.2P 7 7 7 2 2 1 0 6 66 14 12 L(9-11) - 5.57 Dominant:16, Just Quality:6, Just Winnable:4, Poor:7 Freddy Garcia 2002 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Apr. 27 NYY W 1-0 8.0D 4 0 0 0 1 8 10 7 111 28 81 W(3-2) - 3.93 May. 3 @NYY W 6-2 8.0D 3 2 2 1 3 6 11 6 113 30 71 W(4-2) - 3.63 May. 19 @BOS L 3-2 8.0Q 9 3 3 0 1 4 15 5 124 34 55 L(4-4) - 3.84 Jun. 3 @OAK W 4-1 8.2D 5 1 1 1 1 5 11 8 99 28 69 W(7-4) - 3.39 Jun. 8 CHC W 4-2 8.0D 5 1 1 1 2 7 10 4 104 29 73 W(8-4) - 3.20 Jun. 19 @CIN W 2-0 8.0D 3 0 0 0 0 7 11 5 107 28 83 W(10-4) - 3.02 Jun. 29 COL W 8-1 8.0D 6 1 1 0 1 5 13 5 95 29 70 W(11-5) - 3.56 Aug. 25 @CLE W 12-4 8.0Q 7 4 4 1 4 5 12 8 129 34 53 W(14-9) - 4.30 May. 8 TOR W 5-4 7.0D 7 3 3 1 1 8 9 7 114 28 58 - - 3.66 May. 24 BAL W 6-2 7.0D 3 2 2 2 2 9 8 7 115 27 70 W(5-4) - 3.72 May. 29 @TB W 5-2 7.1D 5 2 2 2 0 7 10 8 96 29 67 W(6-4) - 3.60 Jun. 14 @SD W 6-3 7.2D 5 3 3 1 2 8 9 5 103 27 58 W(9-4) - 3.25 Jul. 4 MIN W 2-1 7.0D 6 1 1 0 1 7 11 5 102 27 67 - - 3.44 Jul. 29 DET W 4-3 7.0Q 6 7 3 3 1 2 6 6 7 107 29 55 - - 4.03 Aug. 3 CLE W 12-4 7.0D 4 2 2 1 3 4 10 7 121 28 62 W(12-7) - 3.96 Aug. 30 KC L 5-1 7.0Q 7 4 4 0 3 3 6 13 116 30 47 L(14-10) - 4.34 Sep. 11 @TEX L 4-3 7.0D 6 3 3 2 1 12 3 8 112 28 64 - - 4.37 Sep. 21 LAA W 6-4 7.0Q 8 4 4 2 1 3 3 15 122 30 47 W(16-10) - 4.40 Sep. 27 @LAA W 7-6 7.0Q 7 3 3 0 3 4 8 11 113 30 52 - - 4.39 Apr. 1 CWS L 6-5 6.1Q 8 3 3 0 2 0 8 10 115 30 43 L(0-1) - 4.26 Apr. 6 OAK L 8-3 6.0P 8 6 6 3 2 6 11 8 117 30 36 L(0-2) - 6.57 Apr. 11 @LAA W 8-4 6.1Q 9 4 3 0 0 3 4 13 86 29 44 W(1-2) - 5.79 Apr. 21 TEX W 5-3 6.0Q 7 2 2 2 0 3 10 8 101 25 53 W(2-2) - 5.02 May. 14 @TOR L 6-3 6.0Q 5 4 4 1 2 9 6 6 108 26 53 L(4-3) - 3.90 Jul. 14 @TB W 7-6 6.2P 9 6 6 0 1 1 9 11 86 26 27 - - 3.69 Jul. 24 TEX L 4-3 6.1Q 6 4 4 1 4 6 9 5 107 27 47 L(11-7) - 4.03 Aug. 9 @CWS L 10-2 6.0P 7 6 6 1 2 3 10 6 100 28 35 L(12-8) - 4.15 Aug. 15 BOS W 4-3 6.2Q 7 3 3 1 4 7 4 8 113 28 46 W(13-8) - 4.17 Sep. 6 @KC W 14-7 6.0Q 12 4 4 1 0 2 10 7 99 28 34 W(15-10) - 4.39 Sep. 16 TEX W 6-5 6.2Q 8 3 3 0 2 5 8 9 108 27 44 - - 4.38 Jul. 19 @LAA L 15-3 5.2P 11 6 6 0 3 4 4 8 107 28 19 L(11-6) - 3.96 Aug. 20 @DET L 6-3 5.1W 11 5 5 2 3 8 7 7 113 31 31 L(13-9) - 4.30 Apr. 16 @OAK W 6-2 4.0W 3 2 2 2 1 3 5 5 59 16 50 - - 5.56 Jun. 24 OAK L 13-2 3.0P 9 10 10 0 5 3 7 3 85 23 -1 L(10-5) - 3.73 Dominant:13, Just Quality:14, Just Winnable:2, Poor:5

The details for each pitcher: Mark Buehrle 2005 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Apr. 16 SEA W 2-1 9.0D 3 1 1 0 1 12 8 7 106 31 88 W(2-1) - 2.25 May. 24 @LAA W 2-1 9.0D 4 1 1 0 2 6 11 8 120 32 79 - - 3.05 Jun. 17 LAD W 6-0 9.0D 8 0 0 0 0 6 13 10 114 32 77 W(8-1) - 2.67 Sep. 25 MIN W 4-1 9.0D 4 1 1 0 0 6 12 8 106 31 81 W(16-8) - 3.20 Oct. 12 LAA W 2-1 9.0D 5 1 1 1 0 4 14 9 99 32 77 W(2-0) - 2.81 Apr. 4 CLE W 1-0 8.0D 2 0 0 0 1 5 11 7 103 25 82 W(1-0) - 0.00 May. 3 KC W 5-4 8.0Q 8 4 4 3 0 4 10 10 113 32 54 W(4-1) - 4.00 May. 13 BAL W 5-3 8.0D 5 3 3 0 1 5 11 8 107 28 64 W(6-1) - 3.73 May. 30 LAA W 5-4 8.1Q 9 4 3 1 1 2 9 15 100 34 52 - - 3.07 Jun. 22 KC W 5-1 8.0D 5 1 0 0 1 6 13 4 103 28 75 W(9-1) - 2.48 Aug. 24 @MIN W 6-4 8.0D 6 1 1 1 0 6 11 4 105 26 72 W(14-6) - 2.99 Apr. 10 @MIN L 5-2 7.0W 7 5 5 1 3 2 14 7 100 31 42 L(1-1) - 3.00 Apr. 21 @DET W 4-3 7.0Q 6 3 3 1 1 4 11 6 96 27 56 W(3-1) - 2.61 May. 8 @TOR W 5-4 7.1Q 9 4 2 0 2 4 13 4 105 30 50 W(5-1) - 3.78 May. 18 TEX W 7-0 7.1D 9 0 0 0 0 2 7 14 104 31 62 W(7-1) - 3.33 Jun. 11 @SD L 2-1 7.2D 7 0 0 0 1 6 6 11 111 30 70 - - 2.91 Jul. 9 OAK L 10-1 7.0W 6 5 2 1 2 3 11 7 112 30 52 L(10-3) - 2.58 Jul. 16 @CLE W 7-5 7.0D 3 2 2 0 0 6 8 7 101 26 69 W(11-3) - 2.58 Aug. 6 SEA W 4-2 7.0D 7 1 1 0 0 3 14 5 105 28 62 W(13-4) - 2.79 Aug. 12 @BOS L 9-8 7.0W 12 6 6 2 2 2 13 9 113 34 29 L(13-5) - 2.99 Aug. 17 MIN L 5-1 7.0Q 8 5 4 2 2 7 12 4 118 32 48 L(13-6) - 3.07 Aug. 29 @TEX L 7-5 7.0W 9 7 4 2 1 4 16 8 109 34 40 L(14-7) - 3.07 Sep. 3 DET W 6-2 7.0D 9 1 1 1 0 8 7 5 103 27 63 W(15-7) - 3.01 Oct. 5 BOS W 5-4 7.0Q 8 4 4 0 1 2 14 7 95 30 46 W(1-0) - 5.14 Oct. 23 HOU W 7-6 7.0Q 7 4 4 1 0 6 10 4 100 28 53 - - 3.52 Apr. 26 @OAK L 9-7 6.0P 11 7 7 0 3 2 14 4 99 31 21 - - 3.89 Jun. 5 CLE L 6-4 6.1Q 9 3 3 1 0 7 9 5 119 27 50 - - 3.15 Jun. 28 @DET W 2-1 6.2D 8 1 1 0 0 6 7 10 112 27 60 W(10-1) - 2.42 Jul. 3 @OAK L 7-2 6.1P 14 7 4 0 2 3 14 7 110 34 24 L(10-2) - 2.58 Jul. 21 BOS L 6-5 6.0W 10 5 3 0 3 1 13 7 103 31 34 - - 2.66 Jul. 26 @KC L 7-1 6.0P 8 7 7 0 2 2 14 7 103 29 28 L(11-4) - 2.96 Sep. 9 LAA L 6-5 6.0W 10 5 5 1 1 2 8 9 85 28 33 - - 3.13 Sep. 15 @KC L 7-5 6.1Q 9 4 4 0 2 3 9 8 112 31 40 L(15-8) - 3.21 Sep. 20 CLE W 7-6 6.0Q 7 4 4 3 2 5 6 11 108 27 45 - - 3.28 Aug. 1 @BAL W 6-3 5.2D 5 1 0 0 1 3 8 8 85 25 59 W(12-4) - 2.86 Sep. 30 @CLE W 3-2 5.2D 3 0 0 0 3 6 6 5 88 22 66 - - 3.12 Dominant:17, Just Quality:10, Just Winnable:6, Poor:3 Mark Buehrle 2004 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Jul. 21 @CLE W 14-0 9.0D 2 0 0 0 0 4 14 5 90 27 87 W(10-3) - 3.86 Jul. 31 @DET L 3-2 9.0D 5 2 2 0 3 3 12 8 116 35 69 - - 3.83 Sep. 9 @TEX W 7-3 9.0D 3 3 2 2 2 6 10 10 119 31 75 W(14-8) - 4.03 Sep. 25 KC W 5-1 9.0D 4 1 1 1 1 6 13 12 116 33 80 W(15-10) - 4.00 Sep. 30 @KC W 9-2 9.0D 4 2 1 0 0 8 11 6 115 31 81 W(16-10) - 3.89 Apr. 10 @NYY W 7-3 8.0D 3 2 0 0 2 4 11 9 117 30 74 W(1-0) - 1.23 Apr. 25 TB W 6-5 8.2Q 11 5 5 2 1 7 12 10 112 33 43 - - 5.93 Jun. 13 ATL W 10-3 8.0D 8 3 3 1 0 4 11 10 91 31 58 W(7-1) - 3.65 Jun. 29 @MIN W 6-2 8.0D 8 2 2 1 0 7 17 4 108 32 65 W(8-2) - 4.33 Jul. 10 SEA W 3-2 8.0D 9 2 2 0 0 2 13 6 93 29 58 W(9-2) - 4.03 Sep. 20 MIN L 8-2 8.0W 10 7 7 4 3 3 15 12 112 35 34 L(14-10) - 4.12 Apr. 5 @KC L 9-7 7.2Q 8 3 2 1 1 1 11 8 95 26 48 - - 2.70 May. 1 TOR W 4-3 7.2D 6 2 2 0 1 8 9 4 115 28 61 - - 5.35 May. 11 BAL W 15-0 7.0D 4 0 0 0 2 6 8 7 100 27 73 W(2-1) - 4.53 May. 16 MIN W 11-0 7.2D 7 0 0 0 0 7 6 7 115 27 67 W(3-1) - 3.99 May. 21 @MIN W 8-2 7.0D 7 2 2 1 2 8 9 4 117 30 61 W(4-1) - 3.84 May. 27 TEX W 9-0 7.0D 9 0 0 0 1 5 9 7 109 29 63 W(5-1) - 3.46 Jun. 8 PHI W 14-11 7.0W 9 6 6 2 2 6 11 10 108 32 39 W(6-1) - 3.67 Jun. 23 CLE L 9-5 7.0P 10 8 8 3 2 4 10 10 89 33 27 L(7-2) - 4.49 Jul. 4 @CHC L 2-1 7.0D 4 1 1 1 2 8 9 4 90 26 71 - - 4.15 Aug. 6 CLE L 3-2 7.2Q 9 3 3 1 1 5 13 8 120 30 48 L(10-5) - 3.83 Aug. 11 KC L 4-2 7.0Q 7 4 3 1 1 3 12 8 111 28 51 L(10-6) - 3.84 Aug. 15 @BOS W 5-4 7.0D 6 2 2 0 4 5 8 9 110 29 58 W(11-6) - 3.79 Sep. 4 SEA W 8-7 7.0Q 9 3 3 0 2 3 18 5 108 29 48 W(13-8) - 4.12 Sep. 15 @MIN L 6-1 7.0Q 6 5 2 0 3 4 12 6 107 31 52 L(14-9) - 3.98 Apr. 15 KC W 6-5 6.0W 7 5 5 2 2 7 6 8 110 26 43 - - 3.05 May. 5 @BAL W 6-5 6.2Q 10 4 3 2 2 3 11 5 108 28 36 - - 5.27 Jun. 2 @OAK L 3-2 6.0D 5 1 1 1 2 6 7 8 122 25 62 - - 3.30 Jun. 18 @WAS W 11-7 6.0P 10 7 7 1 1 4 13 5 107 29 27 - - 4.07 Jul. 16 @OAK L 5-1 6.0W 9 4 4 1 2 3 8 11 100 28 39 L(9-3) - 4.12 Jul. 26 MIN L 6-2 6.1W 12 4 4 1 0 2 12 5 117 29 35 L(10-4) - 3.94 Aug. 20 BOS L 10-1 6.0P 11 9 7 2 2 4 13 4 92 29 20 L(11-7) - 4.00 Aug. 25 @DET L 5-4 6.0Q 8 3 3 0 1 4 9 6 99 26 47 L(11-8) - 4.02 Aug. 30 PHI W 9-8 6.0P 9 6 5 2 1 4 11 7 102 27 35 W(12-8) - 4.13 Apr. 20 NYY L 11-8 2.0P 8 8 8 0 2 1 5 4 57 17 7 L(1-1) - 5.96 Dominant:17, Just Quality:8, Just Winnable:5, Poor:5 Mark Buehrle 2003 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* Jun. 26 @MIN W 5-1 9.0D 5 1 1 0 2 9 13 6 128 33 80 W(5-10) - 4.59 Aug. 8 OAK W 3-2 9.0D 5 2 2 1 0 6 8 13 115 30 75 W(10-11) - 4.29 Apr. 5 DET W 7-0 8.0D 3 0 0 0 0 3 8 11 103 27 79 W(1-1) - 1.20 Jun. 16 BOS W 4-2 8.0D 4 2 1 1 1 3 11 11 91 29 70 W(3-10) - 4.85 Jul. 1 MIN W 6-1 8.0D 8 1 1 1 0 5 14 9 100 31 67 W(6-10) - 4.36 Aug. 18 LAA W 4-2 8.0D 6 2 2 0 1 5 10 5 106 31 66 - - 4.14 Sep. 19 KC W 8-5 8.2Q 7 5 5 1 1 4 11 7 107 31 48 W(14-13) - 4.19 Mar. 31 @KC L 3-0 7.0D 6 2 2 0 3 1 11 10 96 29 55 L(0-1) - 2.57 Apr. 10 @CLE W 7-2 7.0D 5 1 1 0 3 2 13 8 107 29 62 W(2-1) - 1.23 Apr. 15 KC L 8-5 7.2D 8 3 2 1 2 6 7 6 102 29 52 - - 1.57 Apr. 25 MIN L 6-1 7.0Q 5 3 3 0 2 4 9 7 104 27 57 L(2-3) - 3.38 May. 6 @OAK L 6-0 7.1Q 7 6 2 1 2 2 13 10 107 32 48 L(2-5) - 3.54 Jul. 6 @TB W 11-3 7.0Q 7 3 3 0 0 1 17 7 109 29 52 W(7-10) - 4.34 Jul. 12 @CLE W 7-4 7.1D 8 4 2 0 2 2 10 8 112 32 50 - - 4.24 Jul. 18 DET W 7-5 7.2D 10 4 1 0 1 5 9 8 89 28 48 W(8-10) - 4.10 Jul. 23 @TOR W 7-6 7.0Q 7 5 5 1 2 7 12 7 113 31 48 - - 4.21 Aug. 13 @LAA L 2-1 7.0D 10 2 2 0 1 1 15 9 98 31 49 L(10-12) - 4.22 Sep. 3 BOS L 5-4 7.2D 8 2 2 1 1 3 8 8 95 29 52 - - 4.22 Sep. 14 @BOS W 7-2 7.0D 7 2 2 1 1 3 14 5 115 28 57 W(13-13) - 4.13 Sep. 23 NYY L 7-0 7.0D 8 2 2 1 1 5 7 11 109 29 57 L(14-14) - 4.14 Apr. 30 OAK L 4-1 6.0W 9 4 4 1 1 2 12 8 85 26 39 L(2-4) - 3.72 May. 21 TOR W 6-5 6.0W 10 5 5 0 4 4 9 8 111 31 32 - - 5.19 May. 26 @TOR L 11-5 6.0Q 5 6 2 0 2 1 14 5 97 26 45 L(2-8) - 5.01 Jun. 1 @CLE L 5-4 6.1D 6 1 1 0 2 4 8 5 111 26 59 - - 4.73 Jun. 6 @LAD L 2-1 6.0D 4 2 2 1 0 6 8 2 80 21 62 L(2-9) - 4.61 Jun. 21 @CHC W 7-6 6.1W 9 4 4 1 2 2 5 7 92 27 39 W(4-10) - 4.90 Jul. 29 @KC W 9-6 6.1Q 9 3 3 0 0 3 12 5 106 26 46 W(9-10) - 4.21 Aug. 23 TEX W 13-2 6.0D 4 1 0 0 1 3 4 9 105 23 64 W(11-12) - 4.01 Sep. 9 MIN W 8-6 6.0D 7 2 2 0 3 2 8 5 106 27 49 W(12-13) - 4.18 May. 11 @SEA L 7-2 5.0W 9 5 4 2 6 3 10 5 104 29 28 L(2-6) - 3.86 Aug. 3 @SEA L 8-2 5.0P 7 6 6 0 3 3 7 8 92 25 29 L(9-11) - 4.42 Aug. 29 @DET L 8-4 5.0P 10 8 8 1 4 3 8 6 93 28 14 L(11-13) - 4.27 Apr. 20 CLE L 7-4 4.1P 11 7 7 3 2 2 11 2 76 24 13 L(2-2) - 3.27 Jun. 11 SF L 11-4 4.1P 6 8 8 2 3 4 7 5 81 22 20 L(2-10) - 5.18 May. 16 @MIN L 18-3 3.1P 10 10 9 1 2 0 8 5 63 22 - L(2-7) - 4.96 Dominant:19, Just Quality:7, Just Winnable:4, Poor:5 Mark Buehrle 2002 (ordered by IP) DATE OPP RESULT IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB PIT BF GSc DEC REL ERA* May. 24 DET W 12-1 9.0D 5 1 0 0 1 5 14 5 106 32 79 W(8-3) - 2.91 Jul. 30 @MIN W 3-0 9.0D 5 0 0 0 2 4 13 10 100 33 79 W(14-7) - 3.64 Aug. 27 TOR W 8-4 9.0Q 7 4 4 1 3 2 19 5 100 34 56 - - 3.49 Sep. 1 @DET W 7-0 9.0D 7 0 0 0 0 4 15 9 118 35 77 W(17-9) - 3.34 Apr. 17 CLE W 7-2 8.0D 7 2 2 1 2 4 13 7 109 30 62 W(4-0) - 1.33 May. 19 LAA L 6-1 8.0D 9 5 3 0 2 5 11 6 105 34 51 L(7-3) - 3.31 Jun. 4 KC L 3-2 8.0Q 7 3 3 0 2 1 12 11 102 33 55 L(8-4) - 2.82 Jun. 20 @PHI W 6-1 8.1D 6 1 1 0 2 5 9 10 104 31 70 W(10-5) - 2.86 Jul. 18 @KC L 5-3 8.0Q 6 3 3 2 0 4 16 4 93 30 62 - - 3.63 Aug. 16 @OAK L 1-0 8.0D 5 1 1 1 1 2 12 8 98 28 69 L(15-9) - 3.55 Sep. 28 @MIN L 3-2 8.0D 10 3 3 1 1 7 10 7 123 33 56 L(19-12) - 3.58 Apr. 12 BAL W 5-2 7.0D 2 2 1 1 2 2 9 10 116 25 67 W(3-0) - 0.95 Apr. 22 @CLE L 4-2 7.0Q 7 4 4 2 2 5 13 6 110 28 50 L(4-1) - 2.12 May. 3 OAK W 6-1 7.2D 6 1 1 0 2 5 14 3 120 28 61 W(5-2) - 3.53 May. 8 @TEX W 5-3 7.0D 4 1 1 0 2 3 11 7 97 26 66 W(6-2) - 3.22 May. 14 TEX W 15-4 7.0Q 6 4 3 1 2 4 7 9 105 30 53 W(7-2) - 3.30 May. 29 NYY L 6-3 7.0D 7 1 1 1 2 7 5 9 104 29 64 - - 2.77 Jun. 9 WAS W 13-2 7.0D 7 2 2 0 1 2 13 6 90 27 56 W(9-4) - 2.80 Jul. 6 CLE W 7-3 7.0D 8 2 2 0 1 6 9 6 112 28 58 W(12-6) - 3.57 Jul. 13 @DET L 5-3 7.0Q 7 4 4 0 2 7 7 10 100 30 52 L(12-7) - 3.65 Aug. 9 SEA W 10-2 7.1D 6 1 1 0 2 1 11 10 102 29 61 W(15-8) - 3.66 Aug. 21 MIN W 10-1 7.0D 7 1 1 0 1 5 9 8 98 28 63 W(16-9) - 3.47 Sep. 6 CLE L 9-7 7.0W 8 7 7 2 4 3 10 8 106 33 32 L(17-10) - 3.52 Sep. 17 KC W 6-1 7.0D 6 1 1 1 1 3 8 11 100 28 63 W(18-11) - 3.60 Apr. 1 @SEA W 6-5 6.0D 2 1 1 1 2 5 7 6 104 22 67 W(1-0) - 1.50 Apr. 6 @KC W 14-0 6.0D 5 0 0 0 3 4 8 3 98 23 63 W(2-0) - 0.75 Jun. 25 @MIN W 15-7 6.0W 8 6 6 1 2 1 12 7 94 29 31 W(11-5) - 3.18 Jun. 30 CHC L 9-2 6.2P 9 8 8 1 4 4 11 7 91 29 19 L(11-6) - 3.63 Jul. 23 MIN W 8-7 6.2W 10 6 6 1 0 5 12 6 112 27 30 W(13-7) - 3.86 Aug. 4 @TB L 10-3 6.1W 11 5 5 2 0 4 9 8 92 30 35 L(14-8) - 3.77 Sep. 11 @KC L 9-6 6.0P 11 6 6 2 2 4 6 7 106 30 28 L(17-11) - 3.67 Sep. 22 MIN W 8-2 6.0D 9 2 2 0 2 3 14 2 106 26 47 W(19-11) - 3.58 Jun. 15 @CHC L 7-3 5.1W 7 6 4 0 4 6 5 2 110 27 36 L(9-5) - 3.01 Apr. 27 @OAK L 16-1 3.2P 9 8 8 3 2 2 5 6 70 19 8 L(4-2) - 3.93 Dominant:20, Just Quality:6, Just Winnable:5, Poor:3

I've completed my offseason analysis & sizing up the White Sox for 2006. You might be surprised at how much we've improved. Below is a breakdown of each starter's start's thru the years. 2002 MarBue Dominant:20, Just Quality:6, Just Winnable:5, Poor:3 JavVaz Dominant:17, Just Quality:9, Just Winnable:4, Poor:5 FreGar Dominant:13, Just Quality:14,Just Winnable:2, Poor:5 JonGar Dominant:14, Just Quality:7, Just Winnable:3, Poor:10 2003 MarBue Dominant:19,Just Quality:7, Just Winnable:4, Poor:5 JavVaz Dominant:14,Just Quality:12,Just Winnable:6, Poor:2 FreGar Dominant:16,Just Quality:6, Just Winnable:4, Poor:7 JosCon Dominant:7, Just Quality:2, Just Winnable:1, Poor:1 JonGar Dominant:15,Just Quality:5, Just Winnable:4, Poor:9 2004 MarBue Dominant:17, Just Quality:8, Just Winnable:5, Poor:5 FreGar Dominant:15, Just Quality:9, Just Winnable:4, Poor:3 JavVaz Dominant:10, Just Quality:11,Just Winnable:5, Poor:9 JonGar Dominant:9, Just Quality:12,Just Winnable:6, Poor:7 JosCon Dominant:11, Just Quality:6, Just Winnable:3, Poor:11 2005 MarBue Dominant:17, Just Quality:10,Just Winnable:6, Poor:3 FreGar Dominant:18, Just Quality:7, Just Winnable:8, Poor:3 JosCon Dominant:17, Just Quality:7, Just Winnable:7, Poor:5 JonGar Dominant:19, Just Quality:6, Just Winnable:2, Poor:7 JavVaz Dominant:17, Just Quality:3, Just Winnable:3, Poor:10 Avg: Cost $44 million MarBue Dominant:18, Just Quality:8, Just Winnable:5, Poor:4 FreGar Dominant:15, Just Quality:10,Just Winnable:5, Poor:4 JavVaz Dominant:15, Just Quality:9, Just Winnable:4, Poor:6 JosCon Dominant:14, Just Quality:7, Just Winnable:5, Poor:8 JonGar Dominant:14, Just Quality:8, Just Winnable:4, Poor:9 Total::Dominant:75, Just Quality:33,Just Winnable:23,Poor:31 2006 Win prediction: Dom 67W + JQ 20W + JW 11 + P 3 = 101 Wins Dominant = (6-9 IP, <= 2 runs) OR (7-9 IP, <= 3 runs, 6+ K's) OR (5 IP, <= 1 run) Quality = (7-9 IP, <= 4 runs, 6+ K's) OR (5-6 IP, <= 3 runs, 5+ K's) OR (4 IP, <= 1 run) Winnable = (7-9 IP, <= 5 runs, 6+ K's) OR (5-6 IP, <= 4 runs, 5+ K's) OR (3-4 IP, <= 1 run) If a borderline case winning margin & K's make greatest difference. At a cost of $14 mil for Gar + Contra in 2006 there is no reason to trade them. Kenny needs an overwhelming offer that would result in more wins to deal them. BMac will likely start in AAA to slow the arbitration clock. If The rotation remains intact he will likely be a Sept callup since that doesn't affect the arbit clock. Otherwise BMac will be called up & 1 of the big 5 won't be back in 2007. Offensively the biggest change is not Thome+Anderson but rather Uribe to #2. Uribe #2 in lineup (3 yr #'s) 334AB, 62R, 93H, 23D, 4T, 15HR, 46RBI, 25FP, 69K, 7/10 SB, .278A, .327O, .506S, .833 OPS Iguchi#2 in lineup (1 yr #'s) 507AB, 72R, 139H, 24D, 6T, 15HR, 66RBI, 52FP, 114K, 15/20 SB, .274A, .338O, .434S, .772 OPS - He should produce better than Rowand's 2005 #'s hitting behind Dye. Uribe #2 projection 501AB, 93R, 139H, 35D, 6T, 22HR, 68RBI, 37FP, 99K, 14/20 SB - He should produce better than his 2004 #'s hitting behind Pods. Thome is expected to produce better than Everett+Thomas numbers. Anderson/Owens will at least produce Uribe #9 numbers hitting behind Crede. So overall: Pods #1 - 290A/351O/349S : don't see much change here. Uribe #2 - 278A/327O/506S : improvement over Iguchi in this spot. Thome #3 - 257A/374O/523S : improvement over Everett+Thomas in this spot. Kong #4 - 283A/375O/534S : should improve with Thome OB more than Everett. Dye #5 - 274A/333O/512S : don't see much change here. Iguchi#6 - 278A/342O/438S : improvement over Rowand in this spot. AJP #7 - 257A/308O/420S : don't see much change here. Crede #8 - 252A/303O/454S : don't see much change here. Rookie#9 - 252A/301O/412S : Anderson/Sweeney/Owens - don't see much change here. 33% of the lineup has been improved so 10% improvement can be expected (810 runs). That's good for jumping 7 spots to #6 in R scored based on 2005 teams. Pitching-wise the White Sox finished tied with CLE for #1 in AL w a 3.61 ERA. Just 0.12 ERA (3%) away from NL leader STL. On paper the White Sox should repeat. Future-wise I'm now thinking Pods is a Godsend for the WhiteSox. Why? He's cheap. As a barely 700 OPS player he's out of Crawford's & Damon's league (780-820 OPS). He should remain available to the White Sox at below Uribe prices. With Owens showing great promise as a base stealer in the minors & others on the way the White Sox's need for speed looks to have a good supply for the near future. 3yr cost projection: best rotation in MLB: $50 mil 1B+DH: $20 mil OF: $10 mil MIF + reserves: $10 mil 3B $5 mil pen $10-$20 mil $105-$115 mil payroll. They will likely stay cheap at 3B & in the pen. These are not the White Sox of old. They have tasted victory by having the best rotation in baseball. They will sacrifice lumber before they sacrifice pitching. They will roll over the rotation the same way they built it up: homegrown & trades. FA signings should not be expected.

The Uribe question in this deal is the biggest & easiest to overlook. What was the biggest difference maker in 2005 for Garland & Contreras? Mechanics, Mental, or Uribe? Did they have less jams in 2005 than 2004? Did they get out of less jams in 2005 than 2004? Just how many of those jams ended with spectacular plays by Uribe? Can Tejada be expected to make those plays? Hopefully Kenny has answered those questions or at least has his assistants look at enough film to answer them. If the answers all point to Uribe then it goes w/out saying he should be a keeper. From my own personal experience I can recall at least 30 games where Uribe made a run saving jam ending play. With the White Sox margin of difference being a run or two in most games these were difference makers.

Bedard 2005 > 5 IP: 15 GS, 25 ER 1.67 ER per start < 6 IP: 9 GS, 38 ER 4.22 ER per start <sigh> It's so like a White Sox fan to focus on the negative & ignore the positive. The attention getter here is that he avg'd 1.67 ER per start over 15 starts. That means when he's on he's dominant. He was on nearly 2/3rd's of his starts. If you extend it to 33 starts you are looking at an avg of 18 dominant starts over a full season. It goes w/out saying that the O's would not complete this trade unless they could lock up Contreras to a multi-year deal. They presently have more money to spend than the White Sox to get that done.

In the rumor mill today & on the pages of Chicago newspapers Jose's demands have re-ignited the Contreras + BMac + Uribe for Tejada + Bedard talks. Bedard is a promising LH SP 4 yrs away from FA. BMac is a promising RH SP 5 yrs away from FA. The White Sox spent a year on the arbitration clock for 12 GA for BMac in 2005. The O's spent 2 yrs on the arbitration clock for 51 GA for EBed. Bedard is the more accomplished arm but BMac is the more promising one. Bedard would immediately fill the #4 spot for the White Sox. Now why is this rumor back? Because sports writers are thinking that if the White Sox are considering Contreras + Uribe at a $48M/4 price they should spend that money on Tejada. The White Sox are back at the top of these rumors because the O's don't want Prior & they don't want Clement. If I were Kenny I'd be working the phones to get Bedard w or w/out Tejada. Again look at the distribution of runs: > 5 IP: 15 GS, 25 ER 1.67 ER per start < 6 IP: 9 GS, 38 ER 4.22 ER per start A rotation of Buerhle, Garcia, Javier, Bedard, & Garland is stronger one featuring either Jose or BMac. Bedard is like a Javier-lite from the left side. This is perfect for both Bedard & Garland. Bedard benefits from following the strikeout King of the staff & what might be the best sinkerball pitcher in the majors benefits from following the slurvy LH. On the O's side they get a Contreras that has finally reached his potential to serve as the ace of thier staff & a BMac who is likely to fill the number two spot in their rotation. From the O's perspective which is harder to replace? Tejada's offense or Contreras & BMac's arm? Whether or not this gets done will ultimately depend on what the White Sox can afford dollar wise. It goes without saying the White Sox will be very reluctant to go over the $100 mil mark. Without cash this trade will put them over that mark.

2005 last 8 GS: Jose 63IP, 18ER Team 7W-1L vs Javier 56IP, 20ER Team 5W-3L This is a good example of why wins & losses don't say much about a pitcher. Javier was on par with Jose to end the season. Jose avg'd 8IP/3ER per start in the post season. Can Javier do that? Yes. To see why you have to look at his distribution of runs: < 6 IP : 08 GS, 53 ER = 6.63 ER per start >=6 IP : 25 GS, 53 ER = 2.12 ER per start

I was wrong about Jose's age. He's officially 35 going on 36. Unofficially if El Duque is considered to be turning 40-41 in 2006 than Jose is turning 38-39. A 3 yr extension means the White Sox are locking up $33M/3 yr for a guy in his 40's. The risk is far too great. What was Jose's biggest strength? K's. With Vazquez we now have one of the best K-starters in the league. We don't need Jose as much any more. Look at the sits: NON: Jose 122IP, 97K, 1.48ERA, 1.22WHIP, .233BAA vs Javier 134IP, 128K, 2.56ERA, 1.16WHIP, .250BAA RON: Jose 83IP, 57K, 6.72ERA, 1.25WHP, .230BAA vs Javier 82IP, 64K, 7.46ERA, 1.39WHIP, .296BAA Javier will be turning 30 in 2006 making him 8-9 yrs younger than Jose. Who is more likely to have the better year?

The biggest problem with Jose is that he will be officially 36 in 2006 & unofficially 38. A 3 yr deal on top of 2006 means he will be earning $11 mil when he turns 41. Kenny can't ignore reality here. Few players can perform at that level at that age. I don't think Jose is one of them.

For those of you who are NOT sold on Javier what part of 23 GS surrendering 3 runs or less does not fit the criteria of being a #1 pitcher? That's what he did for the D-Backs in 2005. Javier is 28 yr old. Here are his accomplishments: 256 GS, 1643 IP, 437 BB, 1418 K's, 19CG, 7 SO, 89W-93L In 2005 he walked 46 while striking out 192. In 2005 Mark walked 40 while striking out 149. Mark's best yr (2004): 51BB, 165K's Javy's best yr (2003): 57BB, 241K's How any Sox fan can not be thrilled at the potential of Vazquez+AJ+Cooper is beyond me. This guy is electric.

I think it goes without saying that 1 of 3 things will happen with Contreras: 1) He signs an extension 2) He has a subpar year & is traded 3) He has a good-great year & the White Sox offer Type A arbit. He declines & the White Sox get two high picks from the team that signs him. There's no way Contreras will remain with the team if he is having a year so bad that he won't qualify for Type A. The NYY's always come a calling.

I'll leave on a similar note. The White Sox don't have to trade any one. They are not in a position where they have a weakness so great that they must fill it outside of the organization. As long as the 5 starters remain healthy BMac's not getting a spot start. These age suggestions for Contreras are ridiculous. He's in his early-mid 30's now. Garland, Mark, Freddy, & Vazquez have little history of DL time. This is not an El Duque situation. BMac should not expect any where close to the number of starts he got in 2005. The White Sox are deep in candidates to fill the holes in the pen. BMac is not really needed there but if Contreras is a rent a player the extensive ML experience out of the pen would help prepare him for a starting role in 2007. Crede might be a rent a player as well. I don't see Kenny allowing him to walk. He either signs or he'll be traded.

Comparing last yr's endorsement money to this year's is ridiculous. Last year the White Sox were nobody. Now they are World Champions & said to have the best rotation in MLB. You obviously know nothing about marketing to suggest that last year should be used as a predictor for this year's endorsement opportunitites. Who says the White Sox are over budget? I haven't read that stated anywhere. It would be ridiculous for the team to print that given that it's been widely reported how much they made in the post-season, how much they are getting from the new TV contract, & how sales have greatly increased at the gate. There is no reason to believe that if the White Sox can remain JUST playoff contenders the next few years they will enjoy no less than a $30 million jump in revenue from 2005. If we assume the fast majority of that is going to player payroll they are under budget. BMac is NOT going to be making the minimum for the next 6 yrs. That's ridiculous. He will be making a few million in 2 yrs & double to triple that in 4 yrs. Assuming he continues to improve. That's reality. The NYY's just spent $13 mil/yr on one of the best (if not the best) leadoff hitters in the game. If Pods' game improves what's he going to be worth? Next to pitching leadoff hitter is the most important role to fill. Do we have any one other than Owens to fill that role? Is Owens a proven major league run producer? This homerism is laugable. I imagine there are many of you who really would rather see BMac in the rotation next year than either Javier or Jose. It reminds me of the infatuation some of you had with Wells, Rauch, & even Sirotka. In case you haven't been paying attention Mark, Freddy, Jon, Javier, & Jose are ALL #1 starters. They would easily fill the ace role for other teams. The difference between #1 & #2 is not measured by stats alone. It's a question of competition. Any one of these guys can be expected to beat Santana, Halliday, Zito, or Mussina. Can that be said of BMac? No.

You are correct it in that it was a pkg incl Garland for Erstad that Disney nixed because Garland was not a marquee player. Pitching is the most tradeable commodity in the game. So signing starters worthy of $10M+ to 3 yr deals is not crazy. What BMac represents is promising major league starter that will cost a few million in 2 yrs & double to triple that in 4 yrs. What Crawford represents is a proven major league run producer capable of scoring a 100 runs or more each year at a cost of a few million now, & double that in 5 yrs. You can't get a Crawford by trading Contreras.

Since Kenny became GM of the WC CWS how much money have the White Sox paid to trade players with lofty contracts? That's never been an issue with the White Sox because they have the depth in scouting & player development to sweeten any deal beyond cash. Kenny has never run this team thinking of job security & the team's financial security should come first. He runs the team to win. He was able to stretch the team's payroll to it's highest level ever by convincing the team owners he could produce a winner. Now he's going to grow that payroll another $20 million (ala the Anaheim Angels formula). Do you really think there is one person on that board that doesn't believe the Chicago White Sox can mirror the financial success of the Anaheim Angels? Kenny's plan to maintain a winner: 1) Spend as much as the team can afford to maintain one of the best (if not the best) rotation in baseball. 2) Spend talent & remaining cash to field the best pen & positition players the White Sox can afford. He has essentially been following this plan since he tookover as GM. Crawford fits in that plan because he is signed to a small contract for the next 3 yrs & his contract grows to no more than $30M/5 yrs if the team picks up the two option years. If Pods produces any where near the level Crawford has he is sure to cost the WC CWS more than Crawford will over that time. Next to a starter a leadoff hitter might be the most important player on a team. That's why Damon's a NYY now.

Some of you are COMPLETELY ignoring what Kenny has done & what he was rumored to be doing with young, cheap, starters. Perhaps the Garland for Eckstein trade rumor rings a bell? Kenny has shown no hesitancy at all to trading young cheap pitchers if he can get the PLAYER he wants. Is Crawford that player? Time will tell. Ozzie made a proclamation before the confetti has been swept away from the celebration: I want a new #2 hitter to take the pressure off Pods & to move up to #1 when Pods can't play. Uribe is not a proven player to fill that role.

It's true were not the NYY's. We do not sign pitchers to $10M+ a year for 5-6 yrs. We are more like NYY-lite. We will sign pitchers to $10M+ a year for 2-3 yrs. Are we capable of supporting a $50M rotation for the next 5 yrs? Yes. The White Sox have a much better TV contract now that should double the revenue of the old one. They have quickly moved to the top of the list in national merchandise sales. Sure the World Series has something to do with that but only Boston outsold them in comparison to previous champions. They are far outperforming what the Marlins, Angels, & D-Backs did. They should see at least a $30M boost in gate revenue next year. So yes I think Kenny is planning for the future with the intent of stretching the payroll to the $100 million mark.

With respect to the Garland camp which players on the White Sox have the best opportunity for endorsements both locally & nationally? Is it unreasonable to suggest that Jon can make between $5-6M a yr in endorsments by staying with the CWS over the next 3 yrs? The White Sox would like nothing better than to strike a dagger in the heart of Cubbydom by promoting Garland as the poster child for the team.