AirScott

Here's a funny one. I hated this at the time, but trading Keith Foulke for Billy Koch ended up with us getting Neal Cotts. So even though I hated that trade when KW did it (as Foulke would lead the AL in saves in 2003 and close for the 2004 Red Sox), we may not win the 2005 World Series without it.

read KW's comments about Carlos Quentin -- the LF job is his. remember, we weren't looking for a player like Carlos Quentin ... we were looking for THE Carlos Quentin!

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Dec 22, 2007 -> 05:27 PM) Anyone think the roids had something to do with this, and the HRs were a side-effect? I always figured he 'roided before the 2005 season -- remember when he had matched his 2004 HR total in about a week, and everyone credited it to his 50 doubles in 2004 turning into home runs? There were some steroid whispers then, too.

You have to think Linebrink is worth more to the White Sox than any other team because of how bad our bullpen was. Really, they just need one more solid reliever who has been around more than five years and hasn't pitched himself out of the league yet -- kind of like Linebrink. Yeah, we overpaid for him, but if 2008 goes well, our best reliever will probably be making somewhere between the minimum and $1.5 million (like Cliff Politte and Neal Cotts in 2005). Funny how that works. Still, the current Sox are about an 80-win team.

All right, the following quotation is what Rob Neyer wrote about Bucholz and two other rookies who threw no-hitters: But wait a minute...I remember reading something this morning from Gordon Edes of the Boston Globe... So he really was a cat burglar!

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Aug 23, 2007 -> 02:15 PM) I'm not sure Theo respects KW, with the stupid offers he makes us. Theo f***in' better, he's a supposed "stat-head" who traded for Wily Mo and his .300ish OBP in the first place. Pena struck out every three at-bats and never walked before he went to Boston.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 11:36 AM) This is old news. Its Nick Mangold's little sister, this has been all over the news for years now. Yeah they had a piece about it on SportsCenter.

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Aug 17, 2007 -> 01:33 PM) Yeah, Andre Dawson won 8 consecutive gold gloves, had 440 HR, damn near 2800 hits, over 300 SB, and he made the all star team 8 times. I know that he never learned to draw a walk, hence the .323 lifetime OBP, but overall, he was still one of the best players in baseball throughout the 80s. He can't get into the HOF, though, and I doubt that Rock will. This might be his year with the weak class. And comparing the overall numbers, he looks like more of a HOFer than Mark McGwire.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Aug 16, 2007 -> 01:32 PM) Once again, Bud Selig proves he really isn't all that peeved about the pervasiveness of steroid abuse in his game. When everyone was calling him an idiot during the All-Star Game tie and the potential work stoppage, I didn't think he was an idiot. But the way he's handled the entire steroids mess has been kind of confusing. First off, it took him too long to decide if he'd be following along during Bonds' chase, which made it more of a story than it had to be because when he said he'd be there, people stopped asking him about it. It's not like it's a big deal, anyway. So then when Bonds hits 755, he puts his hands in his pockets and stands motionless. It's like he believes Bonds is more at fault for the Steroids Era than he is. Well, Bonds is just one person...with a lot of home runs and an unnatural growth spurt, but just one of many with the latter quality.

How good are the voters' memories? He was an all-star from 1981 to 1987 with Montreal, then never again.

Khalil Greene would be a good power hitter for us (he has 19 homers in Petco Park), but he missed 41 games in each of the last two seasons and I don't know if you can expect him to hit for average. Plus he strikes out a lot. So I'd rather not trade Garland for him.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 10:00 PM) Sorry, didn't mean to step on your feet... I hadn't reloaded the page before I posted. I guess great minds think alike? Agreed. I do that a bunch, too.

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 07:56 PM) I think there might be an good argument that it is more difficult as a reliever. Jim Barr, who held the record alone before today, had to get 41 in two appearances over seven days (23AUG72 & 29AUG72), where as Bobby did it in 14 appearances over 27 days. I'd say you could argue that it is more difficult stay perfect for nearly a month against seven different teams than for a week against two teams. Awesome. You said almost exactly what I did.

QUOTE(daa84 @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 07:43 PM) this is an incredible record and im not taking anything at all away from bobby here but do you guys buy what hawk ozzie and coop said, that its harder to do as a reliever?i think it is harder to do as a starter.....you have guys that will see you 3 times in the same game and your arm is more fatigued after 100 or so pitches....on the other hand its difficult to get in a groove as a reliever and you sometimes have to come in when you aren't 100% warmed up, and it can be tough to have control after just a short time in the pen....also you are facing the pressures of the late inning situation, however, as a starter you are potentially and probably facing the pressures of throwing a perfect game... its debatable and remarkable either way so it may be a moot point, but what do you guys think? Steve Stone was talking a little bit about the record Jenks tied today, how Jim Barr did it by finishing one game perfect and then throwing a perfect game for about the first seven innings of his next start...so really, I just think it's harder for a reliever to do it if only because it covers a longer span of time. Jenks has appeared 14 times in this streak, which dates back to July 17 -- nearly a month; Barr retired 41 straight in the same week.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Aug 12, 2007 -> 09:02 AM) We are the only team in baseball that would have Darin freaking Erstad bad 5th... The Sox are definitely unlike a lot of teams since Guillen was hired, that's for sure. And how many guys have we had in the lineup since 2005 who will be 0-for-3 when Hawk says they're due, only they aren't due yet because their batting averages are well below .250?