Chisoxfn

And the Irish get the ball back. Oline needs to step it up though...second false start of the game.

We had to put our cat to sleep today (only 4/1/2). The cat ended up having a kidney problem and they think it is from bad catfood (even though the food we use was not part of the recall, but I guess every company uses some sort of product that comes from China and it is what can cause the issue). Its amazing how much a pet means to you and how sad it is when they have to leave. Pets really are part of the family.

Notre Dame...7-0 over the Nittany Lions...WOOOO Claussen looks so poised. He has yet to make any pass other than a screen type of pass but he looks so darn composed for a freshman. The kid has that "It" trait and I think he's going to go down as a legend (even though I still think my Irish don't win more than 7 this year, but I still say they get right around 7...the question is can they pick up any early wins).

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 7, 2007 -> 07:55 AM) Well, as soon as baseball banned it... It has always been illegal. And it doesn't matter how many people did it, it is wrong. HGH was not always illegal. In fact, I remember various types of HGH being advertised on late night radio during the 21st century. This is not news...he used a substance that was perfectly legal in baseball and when it was banned he stopped receiving the shipment. Big deal. Thats really not much different than a player using an aluminum bat in college and than using a wood bat in the pro's (since you can't use aluminum in the pro ranks). Glaus' situation is news...Ankiels I could give a darn about. Than again I also could really give a hoot if guys are using or not. Bottom line, I love the game of baseball and the only reason I hope guys aren't juicing is because its bad for them. Sure it could taint records, but the main thing is I don't like people using a substance that is bad for them.

Another Sooner TD...there QB Bradford is so accurate and so good.

Oklahoma...2007-2008 National Champions...I think so.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 8, 2007 -> 10:58 AM) Well I wasn't talking about signability, that's obviously become a huge factor in the draft. I'm just saying that MLB teams don't draft by need. Price was #1 on my board by a long shot. He's got it all.

If you could get Furcal for a package involving Contreras and a prospect, sign my ass up. Otherwise I think the best option is to trade for a young shortstop prospect (using our own prospects) or getting a top notch prospect via a deal of Jon Garland. However, that is because I would plan on going with 2008 as a partial rebuilding year (i'd try to have vets surrounding the young players, but I would also have a goal of getting the team a lot younger in an effort to try and bring back some of the payroll flexibility that the team had during the earlier part of the decade). It would also put the team in a better position to have a shorter downswing when things crash (and thats if things haven't already crashed with 2007 just being a fluke year...and trust me, I'm not convinced that things haven't completely crashed). Bottom line is I'm very afraid that the Sox are going to be overly stubborn and pay horribly with a run of 10-15 years of being one of the worse teams in all of baseball. If I were in charge I have no problem keeping a couple vet bats around, but I also would do everything I could to make sure we had a good number of upper echelon prospects coming in (meaning we would have to deal guys like Thome/Garland/Contreras). Heck, I really wouldn't have a problem moving Konerko & Crede (Crede only if you expand the deal to include a potential leadoff guy such as Willits) if the Sox were able to get a package involving Santana/Kochman/Kendrick (plus a top 5 minor leaguer while I would also try to get Reggie Willits to see if he could duplicate things) and than opting to hold onto Thome (banking on declining his option if things look like they are still a bit off and taking the draft picks for Thome in 2009). Basically put I'd have all of those guys available for trade (Vazquez/Buehrle would be off the market as I see them as intrical pieces to the squad beginning in 2009 which I feel would be the more likely year where you can begin to contend, however, if after making a couple of these massive trades you bring in a few veteran stop-gaps than I still think you could be a potentially competitive club in 08 and if things are going good you than make a deadline deal of sorts to add talent and if they aren't, you sell of those stop-gaps for more talent, thus really putting you in a position to buy in the 09 off-season both via FA and trade as you'd have a ton of payroll flexibility and lots of youth). I also firmly believe that Howie Kendrick/Casey Kochman/Danny Richar/Josh Fields give you a talented base of starting players (the question would be where you play both Kendrick and Richar but I think the Sox could figure that out somehow, especially considering that Kendrick is going to be a career .300 hitter as far as I'm concerned). However, if you have doubts you could always convince the Angels to include Brandon Wood or Kendry Morales instead (although I'd personally prefer Kendrick). Santana has been absolutely horrid, but you are getting a major league arm whose still a couple years from FA and he still has the stuff to be a good starter in this league (and there is no reason he can't at least be a #4 or #5). So he gets pencilled in with Buehrle/Vaz in the rotation along with young guys like Gio/Broadway/Egbert/Floyd (maybe a vet stop gap as well) who compete for the final spots (I should indicate that I expect the Garland deal to add more position prospects because I think he ends up going to the Mets or Dodgers with the other landing Contreras...however, Sox are going to have to take on payroll in the Contreras deal so Jose could end up being the Sox's in house veteran stop gap) Bottom line lets say you get 2 of the Mets top prospects for Garland or 2 of the Dodgers top prospects for Garland (meaning a combination of people like Martinez/Gomez/Milledge/Pelfrey/etc; Kemp/Hu/Loney/Ethier/Lefty/Kershaw/Laroche) That means you have in one season compiled a lineup that went from old as hell (that already was horrible mind you) to one that possesses speed (see Willets/Hu/or the Mets guys along with Richar); Power (Dye/Fields/Kemp/Thome); Defense (all of the prospects are pretty decent defensive players, some with the ability to be above average defenders) and you've significantly cut payroll (moving Konerko/Garland/Contreras frees up well around 40M this year and additional money in latter years and that is befor you factor in the departure of guys like Pods/Erstad/Uribe. Even prior to moving Garland your new lineup would be: Willets (if you can get him) Kendrick Thome Dye Kochman Fields AJP OF Opening - Willets can play any of the OF spots, so this would be either CF or LF SS (Richar???) or you consider moving Kendrick to LF and playing Richar at 2nd, thus leaving the SS position as an open one as well. While that is a young lineup and its definitely one with less power than the current Sox lineup...it is also one with guys like Kochman/Kendrick/Willets whom are all upgrades average wise (although there is no way Kochman is an upgrade for the lost production of Konerko). However, if Dye is effective for the full season (as opposed to just half of the season) and Thome is similar to this year (but maybe a bit healthier...obviously a big if) than Konerko's loss (compared with Kochman's play) would not be as significant of a downfall. Whoever plays SS will be an upgrade to the offense and we already can figure that it won't be too hard to find another outfielder that would improve upon this current year's production. Hell...lets say Kenny wants more assurance he can compete. Give Andruw Jones a 4yr 15M/yr deal (ie 4yr 60M) and pencil him into the lineup that now looks like this (Garland is still on the roster as Crede/Konerko/Contreras are only ones dealt thus far): Reggie Willits Howie Kendrick Jermaine Dye Jim Thome Andruw Jones Casey Kochman (or AJP) Josh Fields AJP (or Kochman) SS (Richar or you find a way to get someone else for SS) Price of lineup: (no one in that starting lineup costs much except...Thome (7.5 or so...Jones 15M....AJP...5M). I figure the rest of that bunch makes a combined 5M putting your payroll in your everyday players at 32.5 M (I expect Cintron/Erstad/Pods all to be gone) with Owens filling a bench spot...Ozuna in a reserve role....SS of some sort in a reserve role....maybe a mack or so in a reserve role as well as Hall (max bench price being about 5M). So position players account for $37.5M Rotation: Buehrle Vazquez Garland Santana Floyd/Gio/Whomever (I'm gonna assume 33M between the top 3 starters...plus 4M for the remaining starters...which is a high assumption...plus lets say 5M the Sox sent to another team to make Contreras a little better.....39M). 39+37.5 = 76.5M plus the bullpen. This basically means the Sox would have the ability to go out and make a big splash if necessary (or hell if they wanted to they could move Contreras/Cash and a prospect for Furcal and easily afford his salary as well, making the club better). s*** the more I see this, the more I like and the more I think it makes sense to move Konerko (cause he could command a boatload).

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 02:23 PM) I've never seen a source, but cheat mentioned there is a handshake agreement between the Sox and Philly for the Phillies to pick up $5.5 million if the Sox do indeed pick up the option for 2009 Wow, now that makes Thome a bit more interesting to me.

QUOTE(Calderon @ Sep 2, 2007 -> 07:55 PM) McCulloch was a waste of a first-round draft pick, not to mention more than a million bucks. Couldn't agree more. It was a horrid selection. Than again the guy I wanted from that draft isn't looking too hot either.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Sep 2, 2007 -> 01:38 PM) There's no way the Yankees are going to pick up his $16 million option, and at his age he shouldn't command a five year deal. I also recall him talking about willing to play for Guillen as well. Since the All-Star break: .319 .393 .555 .948 He has 22 stolen bases on the year, so that should attract him to Ozzie, plus he is a huge Sox killer so it'd be great to not face him any more. Would anyone else be willing to give Abreu a deal similar to what we gave Jermaine? Hell yes...especially if the Sox used him to replace Thome who would be moved for younger prospects, use Abreu as his replacement (even though Thome is probably better, Abreu can play LF, run a bit, and still would be productive...but more importantly he has not shown to be injury prone and would allow the Sox to get a couple good prospects in the system to fill other needs). Come on Santo...u know I'd have to bring Thome into this somehow . In all seriousness, I'd be all for giving Abreu a 2 or 3 year deal at a price like 11 mill per year.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Sep 1, 2007 -> 07:14 PM) Phillip Hughes > Clay Buchholz... Buchholtz curve is downright nastier than Hughes breaking ball. Hughes has a far better build though and should prove to be more durable (despite his injury earlier this season).

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Sep 1, 2007 -> 10:05 PM) Christensen is awful, the Iowa WR's are more awful, but their TE's, OL, and entire defense are all really good. Should be a pretty good team, but I thought we played pretty well on defense, we should be fine in the MAC. And damn, I thought Illinois was going to pull it out, but they should be pretty good in the long term. And it was about 2/3 Iowa fans today at Soldier Field, but they were so drunk and tired from the Cubs game the day before that they weren't very loud. At least I'm not a Michigan fan though, maybe they will finally fire that idiot Carr. Thats cause half of our WR's weren't active and are waiting word from the judge.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Sep 1, 2007 -> 03:33 PM) The entire city is filled with iowa fans. Ya...it shouldn't be a shocker, Iowa travels amazingly well. I still remember someone on here saying it would only be 60/40 (not you rock) but I'd say 80/20 though (based on crowd noise and what my cousin who was at the game mentioned to me).

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Sep 1, 2007 -> 02:21 PM) Time for the customary Iowa trying to coast after getting a lead. Good defensive play and an awesome rushing attack. Would have liked better play out of the QB Christensen but at least no turnovers by him...plus it was a nice win (really it was like a home game for iowa and they made over 1 million bucks for the school on the game).

28-14 now...WHOOO

21-14 App State now and they have the ball. Dexter Jackson is a speed demon.

Michigan State on the other hand is absolutely pumelling UAB.

Man this is awesome...I love waking up to football. Got the Iowa and ND games set to record as both are on about the same time. I'm kind of scared for both teams games but I'm excited to see each teams new QB's (Christensen for Iowa and apparently Jones for ND).

QUOTE(danman31 @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 11:58 AM) What do you U of I fans think of this weekend's game in St. Louis? I'll be there, anyone else making the trek? I think go.....TIGERS!!!!

QUOTE(29andPoplar @ Sep 1, 2007 -> 09:37 AM) I haven't seen anything official on call ups, just speculation. I will be surprised if Bourgeois isn't added to the 40 man and called up, in my opinion they should give him a good long look. I would bet he is better than Andy Gonzalez at just about any aspect of the game. He is. He also has more potential than Gonzalez (although Gonzalez once had some upside when drafted, but Bourgeois is a guy that was thought of at a pretty high level some years ago and that was based on some minor league success). Bourgeious has also put up better numbers in the minors than Gonzalez could ever dream of doing. Its a joke that Andy is getting all this time while a guy like Jason Bourgeious isn't getting a chance (Bourg is faster, a better hitter, and can't be any worse in the field). Albeit I don't necessarily blame Gonzalez because he is a decent defensive 2nd baseman/SS (not great, but decent) but having to play all over has probably hurt his defense a bit.

QUOTE(Jeremy @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 08:37 PM) Hmm. Well I guess it depends on your goal. If you think we're not going to be serious contenders next season anyways - and I probably fall into that camp - then maybe it makes the most sense to leave them in the minors to give them more seasoning so they don't lose any service time. Then Kenny will probably be forced to tear the team down (unless he's fired) and we can call up Egbert and Gio when we're sure they're entirely ready. I was thinking that purely in terms of the organization's stated goal of winning in the short term, it makes the most sense to give Gio and Egbert a shot next season whether it's as starters or relievers. That's certainly a valid concern. If the idea was to to shut down both pitchers to protect their arms then I'd probably be behind that. However, I'd rather see Egbert pitch 2 or 3 games in the majors than to have him pitch in the AFL. The point of the fall league is for Lucy to be able to go in (he is not expected to pitch many innings there at all) and work on a couple of his secondary pitches that the organization is working with him on. He could not do that at the major league level.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 07:30 PM) It's funny you bring up Howard. I remember campaigning to get him in '04 (I thought we should move Konerko instead of Lee for the salary dump we could all see needed to be made)... The responses were that he was too old and struck out too much... To me the complaints about Howard hold about as much weight as those against Egbert. When you're a little old for your league at AA and putting up ridiculous, highly projectable numbers, there's not much weight to the age issue unless your talking about a players HOF chances. It's dumb to complain about a guy with Howard's power ceiling because he's 24 (hitting 40+ HR) in AA and AAA, or about Egbert's while he's leading the Southern League in FIP... But it's not at all comparable to writing off a 23 year old with mediocre numbers in ROOKIE ball. (For the record, I never would have projected Howard to be as good as he is. I never would have thought he would have developed the batting eye he has... Nor would I have been so bold as to predict a near 60HR season.) If it matters, I'm not actually debating the whole rookie league low a thing (a guy in low A thats 25 definitely is someone I wouldn't call a prospect unless he had some crazy circumastances around him and he better be dominating the level and have crazy good tools) because I don't even give a crap about guys in rookie ball (the production there means absolutely nothing to me and the only guys I ever even watch much are highly picks that are there) because everyone else will have to succeed in A ball before they ever get on my prospect radar (unless of course they have ridiculous tool sets such as 100MPH arms). I was more so making a point that there are reasons out there where age could be looked past (although for the most part age is obviously key). And I remember those Ryan Howard debates (they were pretty good if I recall) and it turns out Howard turned into a heck of a ballplayer (and as you said in 05 Howard made some adjustments, got more patient, and that helped him turn into the player he is today but geeze who would have ever expected him to be this ridiculously good).

Carmona is nasty.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Aug 31, 2007 -> 03:44 PM) Bringing up Ross Gload versus the prospects that we're talking about is, in my opinion, comparing apples and oranges. There are plenty of AAAA types who are older (mid-to-late 20s) who, for whatever reason, don't get a shot. I could also name a bunch of them -- off the top of my head, guys like Jack Cust, Chad Bradford and to a lesser extent Roberto Petagine. Guys who dominate the hell out of AAA yet aren't able to latch on (for a certain amount of years -- Cust, Bradford and Gload have all found their roles) for a couple seasons. I don't think that's the similar to a 23 year old who is hitting the bejesus out of SALLY league pitching. May I remind you that Jack Cust was once a top notch prospect. Bradford wasn't and Gload wasn't simply because he was piegon holed (first baseman without a bunch of power are naturally going to get passed up by other guys...plus he had Mark Grace/Todd Helton/Konerko all in his way). But I also know (because I talked to scouts when Gload was still in our minor league system) that he was thought of as a guy that would be able to hit major league pitching, problem was teams just had a preference to have power over average/solid defense at first. But I agree there are lots of AAAA types and I bet if some of them got fair shots (a lot of them may not have quite the skill-set to succeed at the major league level while others may have just never gotten proper development and are just in need of a fair chance...see Ross Gload/Willie Harris) so I still think teams could do a good job picking up some of those type of guys and seeing what happens (especially bad teams with nothing left to loose as its typically good teams that have numerous AAAA guys stashed in there system as there isn't room for those guys on the major league roster).