LDF

i knew it............... how is it hanging. man i miss your graphics.

As much as I'd hate to lose Thomas, I gotta agree Jas. ummm what will happen to the chemisrty of the team if that is done? Maybe the better question would be, what part of team chemistry does Frank Thomas have any effect on? My answer would be none. ok how bout this, by trading frank, what kind of signal are we sending to the club. in addition remember you chg the team up and you will lose some team chemsty

i remember something like that. but still he is having a career yr, i wonder if he can do it again?

WinningUgly! from wsi,

As much as I'd hate to lose Thomas, I gotta agree Jas. ummm what will happen to the chemisrty of the team if that is done?

well we will be lucky to get anything on wunch i am still surprise about clee. i could have remember a disussion earlier this season and no one was really sure. oh well, it looks as we just might get a slew of picks for the players that are leaving. however, trading clee now may be an intriguing move.

D'uh? We are going to lose 6 prospects, of course we slide back a little. I was disappointed all the mentioned was Borch though, when guys like Cotts, Reed, and Wing have been much bigger surprises and have rocketed up the charts 6 prospects, two of which weren't very much prospects (Salvo and Almonte) and it may only be two of which go to Texas. So I'm thinking the Sox lose something more like 4 prospets. Plus they get one back in Dunn, which is a net loss of 3. Odds are if things work out, they get at least 2 draft picks from the two guys that are acquired, which is another 2 prospects in return (IT could be 4 picks, but thats a ?) which is a net loss of one prospect and in the draft picks, if done right you should be able to get some top talent. using a lot of math tonite, uh plus i think we will get a supplemental 1 rounder for everett, have you forgotten colon in the equation? I was only talking about the two trades the Sox made. If you want me to work out the whole scenario, here's what I got. -The Sox will get two compensation picks for Colon -Sox will get 2 for Alomar (maybe one, but I think 2) -Sox will get 2 for Everett (maybe one, but I think 2) Remember to get compensation we must offer abritatoin and they can only take 20% of a paycut so they'll need solid offers to go elsewhere. -Sox may get compensation for Valentin -May get compensation for Carlos (if he walks) Thats what I'm thinking of right now. I'm guessing the Sox should have 3 or 4 compensation picks at the least. i don't know about 2 for alomar. i didn't know both clee and valentin are fa's.

the big question mark is are we going to go after any fa, which means we will lose our 1 rounder. but that pick may be in the 20's

D'uh? We are going to lose 6 prospects, of course we slide back a little. I was disappointed all the mentioned was Borch though, when guys like Cotts, Reed, and Wing have been much bigger surprises and have rocketed up the charts 6 prospects, two of which weren't very much prospects (Salvo and Almonte) and it may only be two of which go to Texas. So I'm thinking the Sox lose something more like 4 prospets. Plus they get one back in Dunn, which is a net loss of 3. Odds are if things work out, they get at least 2 draft picks from the two guys that are acquired, which is another 2 prospects in return (IT could be 4 picks, but thats a ?) which is a net loss of one prospect and in the draft picks, if done right you should be able to get some top talent. using a lot of math tonite, uh plus i think we will get a supplemental 1 rounder for everett, have you forgotten colon in the equation?

welcome to the site, hope you enjoy yourself, just for s***s and grins, what does wu stands for?

you said it quite a lot to me, either way preach it

ahhh quit being soooo sensitive, isn't that one of your favorite saying.

yup that is the bmr that i remember and maybe the same one that got fired.

look at your first post or can't you remember what you write, get a life pal

using some rough language is going to do it, uh

give me another link beside a book just b/c a book says it, doesn't make it correct. i am still doubting your source of the 20.000. wow a book. even in your precious jerome article, it states that joe went to comiskey to give him the money the day after he was given it. if he was guilty why would he do this.

who cares if they don't register or not, let them see what kind of site we have and eventually they will come.

ahhh, that is from BA.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/online/0315...orgsal.html#CWS Chicago (AL) Best Player: Even though the Athletics seemed to get the better end of the Billy Koch for Keith Foulke deal, the White Sox might eventually come out ahead by also acquiring lefthander Neal Cotts from the Athletics in the deal. Cotts was 7-2, 1.89 with 89 strikeouts and 40 hits allowed in 64 innings at Double-A Birmingham, ranking among Southern League leaders in wins, ERA and strikeouts. His fastball rarely cracks the low-90s, but he changes speeds effectively enough with his changeup and curveball to keep batters off balance and still pile up punchouts. Cotts will participate in the Futures Game, and a late-season trial in Chicago seemed likely. Biggest Leap Forward: Lefthander Ryan Wing has one-upped his high Class A Winston-Salem teammate and top White Sox prospect Kris Honel so far this season. While Honel’s 6-5, 2.65 numbers might have been expected, Wing’s 8-2, 1.67 mark with 47 hits allowed in 81 innings has thrust him into the same lofty status. It’s also a fine improvement on Wing’s solid-in-its-own-right 12-7, 3.78 campaign at low Class A Kannapolis in 2002. Armed with a 90 mph sinking fastball and plus slider, Wing might have the best combination of pure stuff and command of any lefty in the system. His .175 opponents’ batting average ranked fourth in the minors. Biggest Disappointment: Lefthander Corwin Malone zoomed to No. 3 on the White Sox’ prospect list following the 2001 season, but despite his impressive raw stuff hasn’t been able to find his control since. He walked 89 batters in 124 innings at Double-Birmingham last season as he went 10-7, 4.71. Back in Birmingham this year, Malone had issued 24 free passes in 28 innings to go along with a 2-2, 7.16 record before hitting the disabled list with elbow and shoulder problems. CHI-LITES • Righthander Josh Rupe has also shown encouraging progress. After an erratic 3-3, 5.26 debut at Rookie-level Bristol last year, the 2002 third-round pick started the season in the Kannapolis bullpen but pitched his way into the rotation with a 3-3, 3.54 start. • After hitting .333-4-52 at Winston-Salem, Jeremy Reed was promoted to Birmingham. He got off to a quick start there, going 19-for-41 with two homers and six stolen bases in his first 11 games. He played a lot of first base at Long Beach State but was playing the outfield exclusively, including some in center field. • Claimed off waivers from the Padres, catcher Mike Rivera took over as the regular at Triple-A Charlotte and could figure in the big league picture in 2004.

as an organization the sox minor league ranking BACKSLIDING Chicago White Sox (15) So far, their deadline deals have shipped out six prospects, though they avoided trading any of their most coveted youngsters. Joe Borchard's struggles in Triple-A have added to their problems.

Q: Rich from Chicago asks: Josh- Has Jeremy Reed passed Joe Borchard in the Sox' eyes? Is .300-15-80-30 with a good batting eye a realistic stats line? What do you think? A: Josh Boyd: I've heard Mark Kotsay comparisons for Reed, and I think it would be fair to say that Kotsay at his best was a pretty solid big leaguer, which is what scouts in So. Cal expected last June before the draft. Long Beach State's Blair Field suppressed his numbers a little bit, but one scout I talked to recently said he stopped doubting Reed's power when he hit a ball out of Blair Field to the opposite field last year. I don't think there is any question Reed has passed Borchard, but I don't think the White Sox would tell you that yet.

ok, let me see if i got this right, a book which is nothing but a book say all this and it is gospel. the court reports of the case says some thing different............ ummmmm the grand jury accounts mean nothing, a second trial agains means nothing. right. and holtzman who was not there at the time say all this, and this guy should be believe b/c of what, his intergity and he has no other reason into this. well for 19.95 you and everyone can buy the jerome holtzman book where in addition to you you wrote, you neglected to add this little paragraph, and of course he would not lie or misread or mishear anything right. >>> According to newspaper reports, apparently leaked by the prosecution, Jackson also confessed his guilt in testimony to the grand jury. But in the official grand jury transcript, which Frommer located through a librarian in Greenville and included in his book, Jackson said nothing of the sort. Indeed, under oath, he testified that he did not attend the meeting in a New York hotel during which other players agreed to throw the Series and was told by Gandil that the fix was in regardless of whether Jackson went along. "I tried to win all the time," Jackson said. and for those who want to look at the site in which what his name only took a paragraph to support his claim, here it is http://www.cincypost.com/2003/02/25/rose02...02-25-2003.html so i want to see this actual artilce of these two writers who name can't be found or verified. show me the actual reporters link that states that. the yr is 1920, not something that is made up or recreated many years later. let see, actual invesitagated reports say something else, all the case reports say something else, everything that was reported says something else, but we should not believe this b/c of one reporter who listen to old tapes say according to his opinion it doesn't wash. only one person opinions after soooo many others opinions neve said anything else, of course you could read it in a 19.95 book by holtzman. but selling a book was furtherest from his mind right. lets see, in 8 men out, it showed pitcher Eddie Cicotte did not get the bonus that was promise him, if he reach 30 wins. the yr was suppose to be 1919, however that happen to 1917 accoding to baseball library. ref to the game by game account, well look at this http://www.blackbetsy.com/19atbat.htm every at bat for joe during the series of 1919 against the reds. Now let me get this straight. I shouldn't believe Jerome Holtzman or Eliot Asinof because, according to you, they're trying to sell books, but I should believe Shoeless Joe Jackson while he's on trial for fixing the Series? Wait, what's that? Joe said he tried to win all the time? Well, hell's bells!! He's innocent! I didn't "neglect" to add anything, and yes, I used one paragraph from the article, because frankly, I don't have hours to do research to prove what's already been proven, that Joe Jackson threw the World Series. You're right, the trial and grand jury finding don't mean much. That trial was such a farce, that it is used as evidence of innocence is laughable. You point to a grand jury testimonial in which he says he tried to win the whole time, but neglect the little thing about the signed confession stating otherwise. Well, which are we to believe? Really, I care little about Joe Jackson. Do I think he threw the Series? Yes, I do. If Jerome Holtzman is to believed, and I see no reason why he shouldn't be, Jackson admitted to doing things to help the Sox lose. Jackson demanded $20,000 for his role in the scheme. With Joe Jackson being the darling of revisionist historians, why would he stick to his stand that Jackson's guilty if it were built upon lies and fairy tales? Certainly not to enhance his popularity. And your mention of the movie Eight Men Out, I never have and never would use a movie as a source concerning the Black Sox. The movie takes great liberty with timelines. For instance, it doesn't show how the 7 Sox players that actively threw the Series also continued to throw games through 1920. But I guess that is made up too, since I read it in Eight Men Out. get real look at your post you were the one who mention 8 men out, not i. i just pointed out something else that was different. i have never heard or read anything about 20,000 so unless you can produce a link to back up this new info, i am not going to even respond to new stuff. did anyone else ever heard of this? answer me this, why would joe go to comiskey before the series started, and try to tell him this? ref to whether he threw it or not, i really don't believe he did or tried to, and i don't believe that weaver did either.

and did i say anything different

i don't know what i whistle would sound like, so i thought a grrrrr would be better.

ok, let me see if i got this right, a book which is nothing but a book say all this and it is gospel. the court reports of the case says some thing different............ ummmmm the grand jury accounts mean nothing, a second trial agains means nothing. right. and holtzman who was not there at the time say all this, and this guy should be believe b/c of what, his intergity and he has no other reason into this. well for 19.95 you and everyone can buy the jerome holtzman book where in addition to you you wrote, you neglected to add this little paragraph, and of course he would not lie or misread or mishear anything right. >>> According to newspaper reports, apparently leaked by the prosecution, Jackson also confessed his guilt in testimony to the grand jury. But in the official grand jury transcript, which Frommer located through a librarian in Greenville and included in his book, Jackson said nothing of the sort. Indeed, under oath, he testified that he did not attend the meeting in a New York hotel during which other players agreed to throw the Series and was told by Gandil that the fix was in regardless of whether Jackson went along. "I tried to win all the time," Jackson said. and for those who want to look at the site in which what his name only took a paragraph to support his claim, here it is http://www.cincypost.com/2003/02/25/rose02...02-25-2003.html so i want to see this actual artilce of these two writers who name can't be found or verified. show me the actual reporters link that states that. the yr is 1920, not something that is made up or recreated many years later. let see, actual invesitagated reports say something else, all the case reports say something else, everything that was reported says something else, but we should not believe this b/c of one reporter who listen to old tapes say according to his opinion it doesn't wash. only one person opinions after soooo many others opinions neve said anything else, of course you could read it in a 19.95 book by holtzman. but selling a book was furtherest from his mind right. lets see, in 8 men out, it showed pitcher Eddie Cicotte did not get the bonus that was promise him, if he reach 30 wins. the yr was suppose to be 1919, however that happen to 1917 accoding to baseball library. ref to the game by game account, well look at this http://www.blackbetsy.com/19atbat.htm every at bat for joe during the series of 1919 against the reds.