southsideirish

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> guys, Williams inherited a 95 win team. That's why he's so low on the list. It don't make it right, but that's what it is. That's exactly what it is. Guys, read the criteria they based this off of and you will see. Jim Hendry is awful, but he inherited a team that is the laughing stock of MLB and had back to back winning seasons for the first time in modern Cubdom history. That is the only reason KW is lower than Hendry. The Sox are a constant average to above average team. You can not say the same for the loveable losers. Come on, any list that starts with Kevin McHale as the best GM has to have something wrong with it anyway. You should know right there that this list is a meaningless piece of crap.

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 03:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Its a nice thought that stuff like this wouldnt happen but lets be realistic, it obviously is. Just as we have the RIGHT to franchise him he has the RIGHT to hold out. I dont like it and I wish it would be easier to keep players around but its not. What did we expect was gonna happen with a Rosenhaus client? Im glad we franchised him though so we can get something for him in a trade but we knew the Bears were never gonna pony up the money to keep him here. Is it greedy? yes. is it bad for the Bears? yes. It happens every day though. Look at what Plummer is doing right now. Look at what T.O. does everywhere. Whether we like it or not, players want to go where they can get the most money and this is a business. Just like it was a business move to franchise him for us, for him its a business move to threaten to hold out. Both sides are doing whats best for them. If this is the situation were gonna have with him in the future maybe its better we trade him anyways. He has the right to hold out, but then he also is forfeiting his pay. That is his right, but that is pretty freaking stupid. Let me sit out and not get 7.5 million dollars this year? Then the Bears can franchise him again next year just to prove a point - which I would do. Yeah, I feel real bad for Lance Briggs. By the way, everyone hates TO for this reason and a lot of people lost what little respect they had for Jake Plummer when he did what he did. Briggs is looking like a baby. Like he is trying to take his ball and go home.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 10:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There are clearly good LB's in free agency. But how could he be unhappy about getting paid in the same level at the top 5 at the position? He wants a 6 year deal for twice what they almost agreed on before? Thats ridiculous. I am sure he wants a long term deal. He wants the big signing bonus. He wants security. In other words - B O O H O O. QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 01:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I may be alone here but i cant say i blame him. I think holding out is a little extreme but he was denied his shot at an open market. Sure he wants a ton of money but thats his right, and if theres a team willing to pay him that then oh well. What if he gets injured this year? He doesn't have any guaranteed money or a guaranteed contract. I know if I was a professional athlete I would try my best to stay with the same team but if I was ever franchised it would piss me off too. So it is the Bears fault that the NFL created the franchise tag? The Bears are not allowed to use the franchise tag now because it may upset someone because they are not allowed to hit the open market? Give me a break.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not bad, bad for keeper leagues with Mike Bell. Is it good for keeper leaguers with Henry? Is Henry worth a keeper? Where does he rank now?

Signs with Broncos as starting RB, thoughts?

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 02:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can't get DirecTV. The last place I lived, I rented a condo. And the building had a deal with RCN, and forbid DirecTV/DISH in its bylaws. Bylaws that the owner agreed to when he bought the place and bylaws I agreed to when I rented the place. Where I live now the apartment complex is fine with me getting a DirecTV, but there is a gigantic pine tree blocking my southern exposure. So unless I am going to move, I can not get DirecTV. That sucks. That is the same issue my buddy had. His window was facing the wrong way and he could not get DirecTV. Can't DirecTV do something about that issue?

QUOTE(Linnwood @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 01:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> MLB is a government sanctioned monopoly. Has been since May 29, 1922, by the Supreme Court case Federal Baseball Club v. National League. It was reaffirmed in Toolson v. New York Yankees in '52 and in Flood v. Kuhn in '72. I think this deal is awful and pisses me off. But there is nothing illegal about it. Sadly, like an addict, I will now go and sign up for MLB.tv since I could care less how much "product" is on in the Washington DC metro area. Sure there will be 300 some games on, but save for the 8 when the O's play the Sox, I don't give a s*** about any of them. f***ing hate Selig. If you care this much about it why don't you or won't you get DirecTV istead of cable? I am just curious why people are getting so pissed off about it when they can just get the DirecTV and have it.

Just a question, but what is stopping someone or anyone from getting DirecTV if they really wanted this package or the NFL package? What does cable have over DirecTV? The only thing I can figure out is On Demand. Now my friend had condo pointed in the wrong direction, so he was unable to install a dish and receive the signal, but other than that what are the reasons for not getting DirecTV if you want the NFL or MLB package?

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 12:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Heard on sports talk radio tonight that the rumor flying around in the radio world is ESPN has let go Michael Irvin and he will be replaced by Bill Parcells. Anyone else hear anything similar? Damn it's about time. I don't know how he kept his job that long. He was absolutely awful. I would hire Sterling Sharpe before Parcells. I like Sterling Sharpe.

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Mar 3, 2007 -> 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well at what point does a potential FA say to themselves, well I would like to go to the whitesox, however do I really need to deal with the landslide of crap when I eventually leave. I think that players talk and listed to what other players say about him rather than what is written in the media. Most players have nothing but great things to say about Ozzie. I doubt we have any problems getting free agents because of Ozzie. I HIGHLY doubt it. I find it a total non issue. QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Mar 3, 2007 -> 08:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> BTW, a couple of things. What was the rumor about McCarthy that has been mentioned in this thread? Also, after thinking about the comments by Ozzie and looking at the story as a whole, I'm going to agree with him ripping Brandon. Brandon talks first. If Ozzie doesn't say anything, fans would say "Oh, what Brandon said must be true" and FA's would probably think the same. I'm not saying Ozzie ripping the guy helps big time, but it does save some face if you really think about it by killing Brandon's credibility. Fact is, Brandon should've never started it in the first place, but of course, Cy Young, err, McCarthy will get a free pass. Ozzie takes care of all his players whether we like to admit it or not. Look at the 2005 WS Game 2 with Jenks blowing the save. He could've ripped the guy and gone with Cotts who was pretty lights out or even Politte, both who are veterans. Instead he discussed the blown save with Jenks right after the game and told him not to worry and to be ready the next game. Yes, again, Ozzie showing confidence in his players. The whole Latin argument as well is pretty retarded IMO, but that's a whole 'nother discussion. I also agree with Ozzie stating his other 5 starters were still better options than McCarthy which was true. They were all proven guys and usually those guys are less prone to continue the slump over a young guy who couldn't even handle the pen. Guys like Danny Haren and Johan were able to deal with starting off there. I'm guessing in 5 years, Brandon McCarthy will be in the same light as Jeremy Reed. Who? Awesome post!!!!!

QUOTE(ScottyDo @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 01:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think the Williams Doctrine has been fairly well established on this issue. Honestly, I'm okay with it considering our crosstown buddies just blew $40 million on the pitcher who most defines mediocrity to me. But seriously, do you ever think Williams will spring $140 for Barry Zito or his ilk? He's all but told us he won't. And this is coming from a man who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called a pessimist. (EDIT) And that man is ME! Not KW. Though you can't call him a pessimist either, I guess. KWs doctrine shows that he doesn't pay for FA's? I think he will be more than willing to pay for a pitcher of Santana's caliber. Barry Zito is at best a number 2. He is not an ace. Will he spring 140 for Santana? Yeah, I think he would in a heartbeat. QUOTE(StrangeSox @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Maybe their farm system isn't very good, but if they're able to trade over-inflated prospects for good players I think it works out for them. That wasn't the point, was it? This other poster seems to be able to look at the farm systems of the Yankees and Mets and Twins and Tigers and drool over them, while at the same time look at ours and see nothing. That was the point. By the way, KW has been able to do this time and time again with our farm system sending over-hyped players such as Jeremy Reed out for Freddy Garcia.

QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 12:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I absolutely agree. Bonderman, Verlander, and Miller all have great, great stuff (the first 2 have fatsballs that legitmately sit at 95 and 98 MPH, in addition to good breaking stuff). There isn't a single starting pitcher in the Sox organization outside of Contreras that has an arm like that. The reality is that none of Danks, Gio, Sisco, and Broadway project to be dominating in the bigs. They simply aren't in the same league as guys like Pelfrey, Hughes, Bailey, Garza, etc. I understand that the Sox haven't had the best draft position, but neither have the Yankees, BoSox, and Twins and yet they have great minor league pitching. And the Sox bear repsonsibility for routinely not offering arbitration to FAs to get more picks, and not drafting guys with signability issues. I'm assuming that both those issues come down to the budget they have for the amateur draft. Anyway, I'd really like to see the Sox have a minor league pitcher with legitimately great stuff. I don't see one right now. The Sox aren't going to get an ace on the FA market, they have to develop one on their own. Sisco doesn't? He is a 6'10" lefty that consistently gets his fastball to the 95-97 area. He also has a very good curve. He has some control issues but his stuff is pretty damn good. You are in very good shape anytime you have 3 lefties with the potential of Gio, Danks, and Sisco. It seems as the Yankees always have big time prospects that get sent elsewhere and don't pan out, so I would be a bit leary of calling the Yankees minor league system very good. The Yankees and the media seem to talk up their prospects quite a bit. How do you know the Sox won't be able to buy an ace on the FA market? That sounds like a bunch of pessimism and "grass is always greener" attitude to me. You will probably use this great line by negative fans and pessimists that I love: "I bet they don't, but if they do I will be pleasantly surprised."

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 11:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> They'll never be as polished as those three. I'll guarantee that. I don't know sometimes. It just seems like we're assembling a collection of #3 (at best #2) starters while teams within our division have #1 and #2's. Within the next several years, with one/two veteran starters probably on the block, I expect more in return than the Cliff Floyd's of the world. We have to aim higher. And yes, I realize (especially with Cleveland an Detroit) they've assembled arms through draft positions. It's just something we'll have to overcome. I believe it is called "the grass is always greener" syndrome. Cliff Floyd? What?

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Mar 1, 2007 -> 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> although it may sound stupid i usually put more stock in what vegas's odds are than what various publications put out. The White Sox were 50-1 in January of 2005 to win the World Series in 2005. I know because I placed a 50 dollar bet on them to win it. It was a nice! I am just saying, it isn;t good to put stock in their odds either. I am sure Detroit didn't have very good odds to make it to the World Series last year. QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Mar 2, 2007 -> 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unfortunately, Danks/Gonzalez/Broadway doesn't really match up with that. Umm, how do you know? How do you know someone like Sisco can't develop into an unbelievable starter? He has a lot of potential. How do you know their young guys don't get hurt. Plus the White Sox punished Verlander all year last year.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 20, 2007 -> 11:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here is the link to the article discussing it. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines The most disturbing this is that Ozzie might be considering having Erstad/Podsednik bat 1-2. Not only would that be the worst 1-2 in baseball, but this type of talk has me convinced that Erstad will be starting in CF against RHP. This same thing was going on last year and Gooch really struggled in the 7 hole. Ozzie knows this, so I really doubt he tries this again. I think this article is a bunch of horses*** that the writer made up in his own mind. Where else would he get it from? There has been no lineup to see this from and Ozzie has not made a comment on it.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 11:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't remember calling him the great McCarthy but whatever. And you're right Ozzie wasn't fond of McCarthy which is more than likely why he was sent to the pen for '06, based on what Brandon did at the end of '05 and in both spring trainings he was ready for the big time and he should have been in the rotation in 2006 outside of that I don't even know what is being argued here. And McCarthy would have been on the playoff roster mainly because there is NO ONE else that makes any sense that could possibly have taken that final spot. And 99.9% of what's discussed on this board is speculation so to dismiss it with 'blah blah blah' is pretty backwards. I really don't know why you were ever suspended and I really don't give a s*** either. You make him out to be this great pitcher the way you speak of him. I think he was left in the bullpen in 2006 because we had 5 better pitchers than him in the rotation. He is and was not better than the Couint, Buehrle, Garland, Garcia, or Vazquez. If you think he is or was then there is the problem right there. I am not saying that there is anyone else or that there wasn't anyone else available to be on the playoff roster, but that does not mean Ozzie would have put him on there. He was looking for someone that would be better suited in the bullpen. Obviously, looking at what McCarthy did in 06, he could not handle bullpen duties. It is a distinct possibility that Ozzie would have looked elsewhere to fill that bullpen role in the playoffs if El Duque was at all injured. You don't care why I was suspended or how many times, but you sure have no problem stating things you don't know or care about. That is quite odd. You brought that up, but you don't give a s***, how convenient for you.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 11:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He struggled after first being called up like most 21 year old rookies called up straight from AA tend to do so he went down to AAA for the first time and worked on his game, came back up and dominated against some of the best teams in the game. I never said he was the only reason the Sox made the playoff, just that without him they likely would not have. Brandon was left off the playoff roster mainly because the Sox only needed 4 starters and El Duque's playoff experience made him a better candidate for a bullpen spot on the playoff team than a 21 year old with only a couple career starts, if El Duque was still injured come October McCarthy would have been one of the 25 players selected to play in the postseason. And as for the large spaces in your posts, I'm not going to edit them out but I am going to ask you again, nicely to no longer do that. There are the excuses again. He struggled because blah blah blah. He struggled last year because blah blah blah. However, when he is dominating it is all because he is the great Brandon McCarthy. Whatever man. If this, if that. There is no telling what Ozzie would have done if El Duque was still injured as well all know he was not fond of McCarthy for whatever reason. You can't say with any certainty what would have happened or who would have replaced El Duque on the playoff roster. You can only speculate. You ask me nicely and I don't have a problem with it. You talk to me like a horse's ass then I will not do it. Just as you mention my suspensions and then have nothing to say after I make my comments about them because you know that I am right. Whatever man, you don't like me or my posts and I don't give a rat's ass. This is a baseball message board. I am here to post my opinions and debate the position I take, not to make cyber friends.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey guess what I have to read your posts in case you haven't noticed I mod this section of the board and you have a history of personal attacks and subsequent suspensions so I have to read you're drawn out posts to make sure you're not herrassing other posters. That sort of line may work with most posters but it's not going to work for me, if you'd like I could always just edit the giant spaces out of your posts if it's too much work for you. And as for you saying McCarthy's '05 season was "mediocre" I recommend you go back and watch some of the starts (boston, texas, minnesota, cleveland) because without Brandon's dominance down the stretch that season the Sox don't even make the playoffs let alone win the World Series. I have had 2 suspensions here the entire time I was here and both involved Steff and nothing else. I think there is a bit of a favortism there, but who am I to say. Please go ahead and edit the giant spaces out of my posts from now on as it is so difficult for you to read. I remember the 5 starts. I also remember the other starts he had during that season that were nothing special at all. Like I posted before, we will see how he does now after the league has seen him a bit and they have tape on him. Brandon McCarthy was not the only reason we made it to the playoffs. He also didn't even make the post season roster and we dominated the post season like almost no other team in the history of baseball. So he had 5 great games in his major league career. Congrats to him, but I doubt he improves on those stats. QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> He had a pretty respectable career, and all I really did was go based off of the pitchers who had the most similar careers as McCarthy has up to his point. It was simple research, I provided a name, and that's really all you wanted. I'm also sure he would have pitched more had those Sox rosters in the late 50's, early 60s not been loaded. I don't know anything about him, but he has good numbers, and had a nice stretch of 6-7 years. You're making it sound like he sucked, but last time I checked, all the Sox really need from whomever (McCarthy/Danks/Floyd) is that nice stretch of 6-7 years, no? If you want me to dig deeper, I'm sure I can find a few more names who are similar to (my estimation) of the type of career McCarthy could put up. I really don't wish to, because it'd be time consuming and completely subjective, but I'd do it. If that is all you are looking for from McCarthy is what that guy did then so be it. Nothing special to me and that seems to be a fair comparison to McCarthy. A possible dependable starter, but nothing special.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Probably Clark. The thing is, what would we get back for Pods on the open market, and what would the Brewers want for Clark. I think most of us would swap Clark and Pods in a heartbeat, but Pods has one thing over Clark which makes him valuable in Ozzie's eyes, speed. We signed Erstad because he's got good intangibles, plus he was a free agent, so you don't have to give up anything to sign him, instead of trading for Clark. What could it possibly take to get Clark. He doesn't seem like a hot commodity and he is 34 years old. I don't see it taking much at all, but I could be wrong. As far as Pods goes, we could be able to get something, maybe a project pitcher like Borchard brought us back last year. Who knows. But your right, he does have speed, something Ozzie loves and the Sox have very little of.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Brady Clark was a guy a lot of people were talking about last season when BA was struggling. The thing is, we've just brought in Erstad for basically the role that if Clark was acquiried, he would play. So unless one of our OF's was traded first, I can't see this happening. We've already got enough of a logjam on the bench as it is. Who is a better player at this point of their career? Brady Clark or Darrin Erstad? I have no idea as I see very little of either one of them. What is your opinion? Would Clark be or have been a better option? What if Pods is traded? Would Clark be better than him?

The Brewers seem to have a lot of outfielders and Ned Yost confirmed that Billy Hall will play center field and Core Hart will play right field. That means Geoff Jenkins, Kevin Mench, Gabe Gross, Brady Clark, Tony Gwynn Jr., and Laynce Nix are all fighting for playing time and one outfield spot. Could we possibly work out a trade for Brady Clark? I can't believe he would cost that much and he could be an upgrade over Pods and could possibly help out in CF and give BA a day off every now and then. Any thoughts on this situation? Does this seem like a possibility?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 04:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> All you need is one That's exactly what it looked like at the end of the year when he dominated Cleveland, an opponent he had faced all year long. First I am not going to go back and check how this guy started his career and finished it. Second, you have to go all the way back to 1958? WOW!!!! Jeeze, now that I look at it, his best season was 13-8? He pitched more than 200 innings twice in a 10 year career? This guy was a good pitcher? He doesn't look like it. His ERA was good only 30% of the time and his WHIP good 40% of the time. This is a good pitcher? You are hoping McCarthy could equal that? OK, fine by me. Good luck to McCarthy. I hope he is as good as you think he is for his sake and the Rangers'. Cleveland was going nowhere fast at the end of the year. Something happened to them after Sizemore made that ridiculous error. I don't know what it was, but they were not the same after that. QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 05:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since we're still talking McCarthy, I'll bring up the point I brought up during the season repeatedly; McCarthy was pretty good out of the bullpen with the notable exception of the couple months when Ozzie gave him very inconsistent work. He had about 8-10 days off right after he made that start in May, then came out and got shelled afterwards. Had a good april, a good june, a good july, had another 8 day or so off stretch in August, and then was shelled for a good part of August and September. Every time he sat on the bench for a while, when he came back out, everything he threw was up in the zone and people were launching it; when he didn't get work, he couldn't drive the change and curve into the ground like he usually wants to. I never recall him being good last year. He seemed to be part of the problem in the pen an not part of the solution. He was absolutely horrible in May and September and average every other month except June - when he was outstanding. He pitched between 13 and 15 innings every month of the year. That seems pretty consistent for a bullpen guy. I think you are just looking for excuses for the guy.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 15, 2007 -> 01:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What the hell are you looking for exactly? Someone who was called up as a rookie, struggled as a starter at first so was sent back down but was called up later in the season and played a major role in getting a team to the World Series as a starter but was then used out of the bullpen his second year in the majors and floundered? So you're looking for an exact same situation? I'm just wondering what you're even looking for here. And cut the s*** with all the spaces between paragraphs, it's completely unnecessary and is a b**** to read. And if what McCarthy did out of the pen in '06 counts for so damn much then why don't the 5 starts he had after being called back up at the end of '05 in the middle of a playoff race count for more? You know the starts against division rivals and high powered offenses away from home when he won 3 key decisions posting a 1.69 ERA and sub 1 WHIP. First - don't read it if you don't want to or if you find it bulls*** to read. Move along little doggy. Second - no I don't need the same exact situation. I need something comparable to where someone was mediocre his first year, then failed as terribly as McCarthy did coming out of the bullpen and was still a good pitcher later. Third - In McCarthy's situation I believe they saw him the previous year when he had about 10 starts (5 good) and saw him on tape and made adjustments to him. The second year when he was coming out of the bullpen he was awful because the competition caught up to him and he could not make it out of the bullpen because he is a head case. You know the appearances where he ate spaghetti w/marinara instead of meatloaf during day games and at home when the atmosphere was just right. He pitched good on those days out of the bullpen. Don't like it - don't read it - move on.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 08:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Santana came out of the pen for a season and was even worse than McCarthy was last year. Apparently he's a headcase as well. Same goes for Roy Halladay. Really? Here, check up on your stats: [/size] So far I count 3 years in which he was in Minnesota's bullpen. Only when he PROVED he could pitch out of the bullpen was he considered for the rotation. After that he was still placed in the bullpen when everyone became healthy. When he was sent back he flourished. That doesn't sound like a headcase to me. That sounds like a young pitcher growing and learning how to pitch. Brandon McCarthy is 23 and has proved nothing, especially out of the bullpen because he was awful last year. He had, what, 4 or 5 good starts in 2005 and he expects to be in the starting rotation? How about proving it out of the bullpen. He seemed to have trouble with that and that is why it seems as if he is a head case. Roy Halladay? He was being switched back and forth between starting and the bullpen when he first came up in 2000. I am sure that is not the easiest thing to adjust to. After the 2000 season he was a full time starter and made the all-star team 2 years later. Horrible examples, horrible.

QUOTE(SoxFan101 @ Feb 14, 2007 -> 03:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A guy that can hit around the .300 mark and hit 30 plus bombs with 2 years left on his contract is worth a lot more than you are making it out to be. Not 2 mention he can even steal a base or 2 when need be. Argueing over it now is almost pointless but the fact is there had to be better deals out there and I don't and probably will never understand why KW settled for so little. Regardless of his batting numbers, he is a bad baseball player. He will make a great team good, a good team bad, and a bad team worse. He is not an addition to a team, he is a subtraction. The Astros got worse this off season by obtaining his services. The Brewers became a better team this off season by letting him go.