Chisoxfn

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 04:47 PM) http://tampabay.devilrays.mlb.com/news/pre...jsp&c_id=tb 3 days ago. Madden is a real good baseball guy too. Really wish he could get a managing position for a better franchise.

QUOTE(redandwhite @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 03:18 PM) Oh, and Tony. I'd love to hear your expertise chime in here... Why is it a good idea to extend the manager of the most underachieving team in baseball history's contract? This team has numerous players on it that would not be on a lot of teams rosters so I can't call them the most underachieving based on that. Plus, Ozzie really had little to do with the massive failure in the pen. I actually have no problem with this move because I like most of what Ozzie asks for out of his players. My main griefs are that I don't consider him the strongest in game manager (this is where a top notch bench coach would fit in perfectly) and that at times I question his evaluation skills (sometimes he writes off players solely because they make one bad impression of them and the reality is, to me, that young players deserve a couple chances).

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 01:41 PM) That seems unlikely - the intrastate games like that, the rivalry, they get sellout crowds, big TV money, and the host town gets a ton of business. Any other non-conference game they add is unlikely to draw as well. I honestly can't figure out their motivation, unless they think ISU won't be competitive. It was only a few years ago, though, that ISU had beaten Iowa a number of times in a row. So I really just don't get it. Well I know Iowa's biggest grossing non-conference game this year was the NIU game so I'm thinking they may think they can find another game like that. Personally I want to play ISU because its an in-state rivalry.

Finally saw Zodiac and I really really really enjoyed it.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 06:40 AM) McCarney wasn't going to take the program any further than it was. His staff had grown complacent and he had the option of saving his job if he cleared out some of his staff. He chose to resign. BTW, word is Iowa wants out of the ISU game after 2010. ISU contends that they are set up through 2020. Why does Iowa want out? I assume they want to schedule another game that would allow them to make more money.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 11, 2007 -> 06:14 AM) How can people say that a guy whose arm lags in the stretch at the major league level has a great arm? And he throws 91-93 most the time, 87-89 from the stretch, with a good curveball, no changeup, lousy slider. But what, exactly, makes him a great arm? 91-93 and no ability to pitch from the stretch. Yeah. I, for one, am happy that Ozzie doesn't buy it yet. Jenks/Vazquez/Thornton/MacDougall all have better arms.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 11:27 PM) How do you figure? It's arguably the worst rotation in the AL Central. For the last 3 months or so, Contreras and Danks have had a hard time getting more outs than base runners allowed. Considering how much money is invested in our starting pitching, they've brutally underachieved the last two seasons. Well, Cleveland/Minny/Detroit all have some of the best rotations in baseball and no way is the Sox rotation worse than the Royals. Plus I still like Danks and while things have gotten rough I also think you have to factor in the horrific pen leading to an eventual wall that these starters hit (because you can only so long with getting royally screwed till you start to think you have to pitch absolutely perfect to win and in turn end up giving up more runs because you get into a funk trying to pitch perfect).

On a sidenote, I want to point out I don't have a problem with anyone rooting for the club to lose. I understand all about the top pick. I'm also trying to throw out other points so you guys get an idea of where those that may not be rooting for the club to lose are coming from. I basically take the approach if they lose, fine, top pick here they come, but if they win I see the added benefit in terms of player development that could come with those wins (since typically when you win its because you've played well and if young players play well its a good sign of your future as you may actually have a couple young players that will turn into quality major league players). I'm not about to care much either way, unless of course we have some significant injuries. All I care about is if the young players play well and I hope vets play well to raise trade value.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 11:10 PM) FWIW, the main reason I'm so big on having the 1st pick is due to the reports I had from a first-hand source at the Team USA tournament a few months ago. The reports said that Pedro Alvarez was far and away the best player, and it wasn't even close. The report also said that Danks was god awful, and Smauk is nothing special. I still say usually the draft is at least 10 deep (in terms of really good first round picks). Ocassionally that doesn't hold true but I really don't typically see a massive difference talent wise between the top few picks (that may not be the case this year as I tend to think Alvarez seems to be a very safe pick who also has a lot of upside). Still, you have the college season to play and you'll have plenty of prep players moving up and down on the boards. A lot can happen between now and draft day.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 11:07 PM) Why can't we be happy when Floyd does pitch well, and then a 38 year old pitcher gets the loss? None of us are hoping this team loses 10-0 every game. That Red Sox series was awful. We want to see every young player do well, but the team just barely lose. Like I said, I don't mind games like tonight but I'm also not going to hope for them to lose games. I'd rather see Floyd get major league wins because I think that helps his confidence and in turn helps him hopefully become a long term option for the clubs rotation (and one that can help the Sox turn things around). However, I also have no problem if Cintron/Gonzalez (who I can't stand, although if he does good I tip my cap and I don't see a problem playing him cause you might as well see all you can) Pods/Erstad stink (although I think both Pods/Erstad play hard and I respect them for that) just to make sure that none our on the major league roster next year (same can be said for Uribe) because I feel all those guys stinking is best for the team (same for Mike the Horrible Myers and Ryan Bukvich).

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 11:06 PM) Dear Mr. SSI: The reason that we selected Jordan Danks with the first pick in the draft was due to how he performed in the Cape Cod League. Our scouts thought his skills were projectable, and he's the player we wanted to draft. We tried very hard to sign him out of high school, but he went on to have a great career at Texas. Jordan has a lot of baseball smarts, and we're excited to have him team up with his brother. If Danks has just a decent season and slips, he could very well be there in Round 2. Just liek if he has a great season he probably goes top 15, maybe top 10. I call BS too, cause i don't see the Sox taking Danks over far superior prospects. I have no doubt they take Danks later on if he's there (2nd round or later) but not before (Unless he has a stud season and in which case he may be worthy of being picked at that spot).

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 10:58 PM) C'mon now. Matt Bush was a pick that just about everybody criticized at the time. I don't remember ANYONE saying Bush was close to being the best player available that year. It's really a shame that they booted up the Soxfest prices -- I'd love to ask Kenny a question this year. "Mr Williams -- with the Sox having the first overall pick in the upcoming draft , will the organization be willing to pony up the money for the best overall player, even if it means going significantly over slot?" Bush was definitely a top 5 pick though. Was he a reach as the #1 overall yes, but that isn't the first time thats happened. And I should say I'm not saying I have a problem with the #1 pick but I see more value in this team winning with young players than it continuing to lose. If they end up losing and the club gets the #1 pick fine, but if Floyd/Danks and the rest of the starters pitch well and AJ/Dye/Konerko/Thome/Richar/Fields/Owens all play well (more so the younger guys) and this team gets on a roll than awesome. As someone whose placed baseball very competively (prior to hurting my arm..and my high school did suck so it wasn't like we were competing for titles or anything) but winning is always key. It helps with your development, hell its part of your development (good teams learn how to win and find ways to win while bad teams do the opposite). I'd like our young players to see what it takes and do what it takes to WIN at the major league level. I also think more wins means that our young guys have produced and I think them producing makes it more likely that they are legit and that alone should help the Sox next year and over the course of the next few years. And in terms of picks...the best pick in the draft is rarely the #1 overall pick, so to me I know for sure if you win an extra ten games there is probably good reasons for the team winning more (and those things could very well likely carry over) and I don't know that the #1 pick will make a difference (compared with the #4 or #5 pick). The only time I would say different is if we were talking about a guarantee at Lebron James or something along those lines in the NBA (and in that case its the lottery which makes that a crapshoot).

What a good finish.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 10:40 PM) Greg....who would you rather have the chance to pick, Cole Hamels or Royce Ring? Geeze...Joe Blanton could have been the Sox. I'd just as well have the additional wins (IIRC the Sox were pretty damn good during the early 2000's even if they missed the playoffs) and that still put them in position to draft Blanton. Sox just made a s***ty draft choice (which has been done). Who'd you rather draft...Matt Bush or Josh Fields??? (Bush was the #1 overall pick that year).

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 10:36 PM) The rest of this season should be nothing more than open tryouts. I want to see all of the kids playing, and get them experience. That is the silver lining for me. The last time we had this type of pick, we picked up a few impact type players that meant a lot for this organization. I am jacked to think that we can get an impact type guy that can help us out for a long time. If we get it fine, but the organization has missed out on numerous high impact guys that they could have grabbed in the early rounds. Now I'm not saying other teams didn't miss on those guys either, but bottom line they haven't had much success and good teams will find good talent even without those high picks. Why is it that the Royals/Rangers/Marlins (although they have had semi-decent records)/Nationals/Orioles all have pretty mediocre to poor farm systems (and yes, I'm calling out the Marlins whose system really has declined) despite being bad (or in the Royals case horrid) the past couple years. The Reds have a pretty poor system (although they have a few high upside guys that end up making the system more respectable). Hell, right now the Angels/Dodgers/Yankees/Braves all have some of the 10 best farm systems in baseball and none has been bad over the past 4-5 years (so what does that say about the true need for the #1 pick). Bottom line if you have good baseball people and a lot of experts you'll get winners without the top pick (now I'm not denying if you have the #1 pick you at least have your choice of the entire draft board, but I'm also stating that if we win more games because our youngsters are playing well than I see that as far more of a positive than the difference between the #1 pick and the #4 or #5 pick).

QUOTE(Soxfest @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 07:25 PM) Floyd's last few starts have really been encouraging to me for 2008. I think he could duplicate Contreras production on the season and who knows, maybe he does better (he has the stuff...if he gets some confidence he could turn into a #3 guy). Plus it allows the Sox to be better suited at moving both Garland/Contreras (which hopefully clears payroll and gets you a couple prospects) and also allows the club to add payroll with other guys (hopefully guys that the Sox can pencil into the lineup not just next year but for a couple more years into the future).

QUOTE(ottawa_sox @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 06:53 PM) Who knows what to think of these guns. Gameday has him topping out at 94. Comcasts guns suck...so I'd tend to think its closer to Gamedays. One thing I notice is that Floyd's velcoity really tends to fluctuate between the 94-95 MPH range and the 88 MPH range so who knows.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 05:55 PM) Depends on which direction they go this off-season. If they add a competent SS and CF, then you can get away with having Richar at 2b, batting 9th. If Uribe is still in the lineup in 2008, with Owens some where in the lineup, Utley better be batting 2nd or 3rd. Or the Sox just have a lot of good prospects everywhere else as they opted to go into a full blown rebuilding mode (and no I don't think it will happen...but I would be acceptable of that).

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 05:54 PM) His defense has been average. He seems to be streaky in the field, which is something we read about in the scouting report. Average...I'd disagree. He's got a great arm on DP's, good range, and seems to actually be pretty heady out there. Offensively the hits haven't came, but he's shown he has some pop in his bat and he can run (although that doesn't mean it translates on the basepaths). As long as the Sox are patient, they will be rewarded (i've said this baout a few other guys and on the vast majority of those instances I was correct). Those guys would be Garland (never doubted him), Crede (got frustrated I'd admit, but felt he was always making strides plus his D was amazing), & Willie Harris. I must also admit I was dead wrong about Brian Anderson (even though I always said he was over-rated as a prospect, I felt with proper playing time he could potentially succeed...that said he had a horrid swing). And I was horrifcly wrong about Mike Caruso.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 05:19 PM) You know, the more I read stuff like this, the more I am starting to understand the posters that are frustrated with the whole "get the number one pick" thing. Not that I care too much one way or the other about games now, or that I don't want a high pick. But for crying out loud, why is it so hard for people to have the patience to see what this guy can do? He's had 3 of his last 4 starts go very well, and even with the bad one he is sporting a 4.50 ERA. I think some of you are way more interested in being right about your hunches than you are about the team or its future being good. I want to point out that I'm in the minority but I still say f*** the pick. I'm happy with any top 10 pick and I always feel its more important to win (that even sticks in the NFL when your playing for the #1 overall draft pick). I believe winning always makes things better (even when you flat out suck) and you notice that those teams that perennially get the top pick still find ways to suck year in year out (and it isn't because of a lack of talent...yes its cause of horrid decisions but bottom line the #1 picks are typically no brainers anyway). Yes I"d love Pedro Alvarez but I also see a lot of value in the taem winning games (even if meaningless). If it means we are winning because Floyd has a great start or PK has a 3 HR game than so be it. I don't ever want players not playing 100% and playing to win because as soon as you start to lose that winning attitude than your organization will be mired in losing for a long long time (and no I don't claim that teams playing to lose...I think 99% of all players always want to win...but there is always the Boston Celtics phenomena). Now if the club just sucks and we get the #1 pick, than fine...hopefully the club takes advantage of it. I'll always look at that as a blessing in disguise, but winning should still be the #1 priority (albeit you should be getting those wins by developing your players...and right now the Sox HAVE been doing that...ie Logan, Fields, Owens, Richar, Floyd, Danks).

QUOTE(3E8 @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 09:22 PM) Shouldn't there be something said for having to pitch in the rain? Getting rotation on wet leather is difficult. After the rain picked up, Floyd and Carmona starting throwing two-seamers almost exclusively. Anyway, I don't think anyone here would count on Floyd to be more than a fifth starter. But if he could give us more quality starts than not at league minimum from that spot, it would be nice. I think people would be surprised if they looked at the quality start percentage of both our staff and other pitchers around the AL. Sans a few hiccups (ie when s*** hit the fan and you can't blame them...at one point or another the starters had to say f*** this and lose focus or just have all the pressure hit them as they were doing everything and than some and still getting f***ed thanks to piss poor defense, no offense, and the worse bullpen I"ve ever seen for a couple month span) this is still one fo the better rotations in the AL and baseball.

I don't get it...Floyd has had two quality starts agains the Detroit Tigers (one of the best teams in baseball) and a quality start agains the Cleveland Indians (one of the best teams in baseball). Last I looked those teams are also in the thick of a race and contending like hell. ITs not like Floyd is beating up on the Royals or Drays who truly have nothing to play. The Indians/Tigers are busting there balls and they aren't about to play soft just cause they are playing the Sox...no way no hell, they know that bottom line the Sox still have talent (the team just has lost its urgency after it completely collapsed during interleague play). This team is much better than the team thats played this year. Unfortunately I still don't know when better if it will be able to put it all together (and yes I am on the record right now as saying this same team back next year wins at least 10 more games, probably 15) but I also don't say that is good enough to make the playoffs either. We won't see the same team back either (and I'm happy about that) but I also want this squad to move some vets for young talent to try and put themselves in a better position to succeed in the next couple years as well as to prevent a massive collapse that makes seasons like this year more of the same on the Southside.

DROP IT. I don't want to see any posts about whose right and whose wrong. All of us hope Everett is able to recover and regain movement and the ability to walk. And some of us Bears fans also (in addition to hoping the best for Everett) hope that Brown is able to play the game again (even if its in another jersey).

QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 09:04 PM) last time I checked teams were willing to pay way above market value in free agency and that for a pitcher of Garland's status, 12 million is a worthy price. Basically, they can get Garland for 12 million or sign someone not as good to a ridiculous 3 year 29 million dollar deal or something. Not to mention surrender your draft picks. Hmm....Jon Garland for a year with the chance of resigning him (or getting comp for him when he walks) or you sign a guy like Marquis for the same money Garland would make this year (if not more) plus lose draft pick compensation. Cripes...I know If I were going after a pitcher this off-season, I'd much rather trade for a guy like Garland and take my chances that I could sign him than go after some of these other losers that will get similar money. And last I looked, teams always want pitching and Garland is a proven pitcher who throws innings and pitches pretty well in a serious hitters park. Oh and he's had success in the playoffs (albeit 2005 was just one year and IIRC he only made 2 starts). Give me a freaking break. I may over-rate Garland, but some of you guys are saying he's a league average pitcher and thats flat bulls***. Than again a lot of you continue to spew that trash about Javy Vazquez and Mark Buehrle. But all three of those guys are amongst the best in baseball the past few years at throwing 200 plus innings and giving quality starts (and in Javy's case he's about the best in strikeouts over the past 5 years as well).

QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 10, 2007 -> 08:56 PM) Jennings was coming off of a better season, but Garland has a much better track record and is widely considered throughout baseball as the better pitcher. If both are FA's, there is no doubt Garland gets the bigger deal.