KevHead0881

Hate to change the subject, but Carmen and Silvy were just talking about some reporter (missed the name) that was on Cold Pizza that said the Bulls and Celtics are in serious talks about a trade that could include the following... Bulls get: Paul Pierce Celtics get: Ben Gordon, Tim Thomas OR Bulls get: Paul Pierce, Ricky Davis Celtics get: Ben Gordon, Tim Thomas, #1 pick (from Knicks) Personally, I don't see any of these scenarios happening. Not sure why the Celtics would want anything to do with Tim Thomas, and even Pierce for Gordon straight up would be an absolute steal for the Bulls (not a big Gordon fan). Carmen and Silvy talked about this for a good 10 minutes, and I still missed on who exactly reported it. Still, if this is legit, where do I sign?

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Jan 12, 2006 -> 08:22 PM) "If Paul gets a waist-high heater right here, it could be 1-0 Sox before you know it." :puke I believe you are the first SoxTalk poster to have Maury Buford in your avatar. Nice touch.

BUMP! For those who care, here's the cover. I'm getting excited just looking at it!

There's not exactly boatloads of big-name broadcasting talent out there anyways...at least none that would play second fiddle in a radio gig. When Rooney left, I was pretty sure whoever we replaced him with would be a downgrade. From what I've heard, the list of candidates (at least the ones that were talked about) were far from inspiring. I think Steve Lyons was the guy with the most broadcasting experience, and he's a dope. And if Lyons, Kittle, Cangelosi, Tommy John, etc. were the best they could find, then I don't blame the Score for going the cheapest route. Really, I'm just glad they didn't go with North or Kittle. Just my opinion, but I think they're both pompous asses. I obviously have no idea how good Singleton is, but at least I won't hate him. At the very least, he'll be like DJ, and I'll learn to just deal with him.

Not a really exciting choice, but why not? Always seemed like a good guy, and if I remember correctly, was pretty personable with the media. How that translates to game-calling, I'm not sure. We'll see, I guess. Either way, good to have ya back Chris!

QUOTE(knightni @ Jan 10, 2006 -> 03:42 AM) At least use the Sox one. Thanks man. I just did a google image search, and the Ranger card was the best I could find. This one has avatar material written all over it!

By the way, here was the top 5 (or bottom 5, depending on how you look at it): 1. Montreal Expos 2. Cleveland Indians 3. Chicago Cubs 4. Chicago White Sox 5. Milwaukee Brewers And it appears that it was done before the 2004 World Series, cause they have the Red Sox ranked at #6 with no mention of their WS title.

Here's where they had us last year. Amazing what a World Series win will do for the overall outlook of a franchise.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 11, 2006 -> 01:09 AM) Wants to be the coolest member of the chat crew...........has no f***ing chance. Probably dislikes the theme song to the Drew Carey Show.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Jan 10, 2006 -> 10:29 PM) Will soon inform me whether Kev was the radio host who did 'Bill Cartwright Sings Christmas' many years back. Is now informed that Kev is not that Kev, but did form the band "Billvana".

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jan 10, 2006 -> 10:14 PM) Ultimate White Sox apologist. The man in his sig better not have the same fate as the man in his avatar.

Mine is kinda lame. My name is Kevin. KevHead was a nickname that was given to me by family members, and it has basically stuck to this day. 08/81 is my birthday. The KevHead part of my screenname (which I use for basically everything) has inspired countless amounts of emails, pm's, posts, etc. wondering if I'm a fan of Kevin Matthews. And to be honest, when I first started using the screenname, I never even heard of the guy. I almost feel bad when I explain this, cause those who ask usually want to discuss the Kevin Matthews Show. Oh well. I keep it anyway. My avatar changes almost weekly. Usually features something related to my desire to make fun of people who don't agree with me. May also feature pictures of obscure Sox players or something poking fun at my oldest brother, the distinguished Thomsonmi. He frequents these boards from time to time.

Actually, I kind of enjoyed this comment:

Sox and penguin pals safe at home

Since I just made my worst movie selection in the other thread, I couldn't keep myself from ranking the best that I've seen this year. So here goes nothing: 7. Walk the Line 6. Munich 5. Cinderella Man 4. Syriana 3. Crash 2. Capote 1. Good Night, and Good Luck Still waiting to see Constant Gardener, North Country, History of Violence and Brokeback Mountain. I have to admit, I've resisted seeing Brokeback because of the whole gay thing. Not that I have any problem with homosexuality whatsoever. I just have no desire to watch it in action. But since I appreciate a well done movie with great acting, I'll eventually muster up the desire see it. Thats about it. Oddly enough, I haven't seen a single comedy this past year. But I'm confident that if I saw Duece Bigalow 2, it would surely top my list.

Has an affinity for smelly mascots that seem to be inspired by Gonzo from the Muppets.

I'm usually pretty picky about seeing movies. I usually do some research before I go to the theaters, just to make sure I'm not wasting my money. And consequently, I rarely see a film that I think is god aweful. This year, I felt that the critics have only severely mislead me on one movie: Broken Flowers. I'm not so sure it was a terrible movie, but I failed to see anything resembling a point. Its like they took Lost in Translation (to use another Bill Murray movie) and took away the intriguing relationship between two characters. Its basically Bill Murray wandering aimlessly in planes and automobiles (no trains) and thats basically how the movie ends. I didn't leave the movie thinking what a horrible peice of crap I just saw. I just left trying to remember any particular moment or scene that stood out as important or interesting. Just 90 minutes of nothingness.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 04:03 PM) So why are you "closet cub fans" defending him? It doesn't take a Cub fan to see that he has some talent. Nobody is saying the guy has been anything but a bust as a major leaguer. But he has had some success (first half of '03) and has the tools that lead people to believe that if he were to figure some things out, he'd be a good player. I personally think the odds are against it, but with the right coaching, and a change of attitude from Patterson, I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to at least be decent.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 02:57 PM) Not a problem. Thanks man! And just for the hell of it, here is the man...

Can I have my title read "Fred Manrique's Sidekick"?

QUOTE(JimH @ Jan 9, 2006 -> 10:52 AM) Well Rock, I think you and I and quickman are the only three guys who feel this way. Thing is, as you know I doubt the Cubs will want to trade him to the Sox and in addition it is probably best for Patterson that he gets traded out of the city. On another matter I also recall hearing the Sox had some interest in Todd Walker at the trade deadline last year. He can hit. I doubt the Sox have any room or interest at this point though. You can add me to that list. For the record, I think Patterson sucks. But thats not to say that he doesn't have the talent to figure it out. For a fringe prospect, I'd have no problem giving him a shot. Worst case scenario, he continues his sucky ways and rots away in Charlotte. Best case (while highly unlikely), he figures some things out and competes for a starting job sometime in the next few years (and of course there is the "sticking it to the Cubs factor"). To be completely honest, while Patterson is pretty bad at the moment, I'd take him over Borchard as our 5th outfielder. They are quite similar with the bat (Lots of K's, an occasional HR...Borchard just hits the ball further), but Patterson's speed and defense are clearly better than Borchard. This is probably all moot, cause I seriously doubt we'd take the gamble. But at the right price, I wouldn't be against it.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 03:12 PM) aaron was arguably the best CF in the game last year, only making 3 errors all year. no way anderson matches or comes close to that. Will he match those error totals? Your right, he most likely wont. Hell, Rowand might have a tough time matching that this year. I don't want to diminish how good Rowand was defensively, cause he was damn good. But he did occasionally get bad reads on balls (the Crede walkoff game against Cleveland and a couple games in the playoffs come to mind) and he wasn't the most athletic guy out there. Anderson is said to be an above-average fielder, and IIRC, is faster than Rowand. He could possibly get to balls that Rowand couldn't. Of course, we don't know that for sure, and athletic ability doesn't always equate to defensive success, but based on everything we've heard, Anderson should be more than able to hold his own. And if all we did was replace a great defensive CF with a pretty good defensive CF, I don't see how we have severely downgraded overall. I do agree with you on your original post though. Replacing Dye with Abreu won't help us defensively.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Jan 8, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) guys the other thing is, look where we got last year with our pitching and defense. yeah adding a bat (thome) will help a ton, but our defense even as it is right now is severely downgraded. our team last year made baseball prospectus rethink their take on defense. they now say that defense actually CAN help you (and in our case DID) win games. if we were to trade for Abreu, we would just be the Red Sox with, granted, slightly better pitching. I'm not sure any of us want that. I'd be just fine without either Abreu or Tejada. I think we're good to go as is. Really? The only change defensively is Anderson. And Anderson, from all reports, is no slouch with the glove. If he is as good as Rowand remains to be seen, but I think saying that our defense is severely downgraded is an overstatement. I'd go more with "slightly downgraded in center field."

The less we see him the better.

Welcome aboard! As an ESPN Insider member, I can honestly tell you that they rarely report something that you can't find out for free elsewhere. The rumor that you speak of (regarding Contreras) basically just quotes the reports from this article: Contreras still could be dealt—for pitching Nothing that hasn't been discussed at great length in tradewinds.