Chisoxfn

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 10:48 AM) I hate the Philly Phanatic. In fact, I am not very happy about mascots in general. I think they take away from the game on the field. One of the worst incidents was perpetrated by the Phillie Phanatic. The Dodgers were in town to play the Phillies and somehow, it got ahold of one of my jerseys. It took the jersey, put it on a dummy and ran over the dummy again and again. That type of a display should not be shown in ballparks, especially in front of children. It exhibits violence and disrespect. I pulled the Phanatic aside and said, “Why don’t you run over a dummy with a Phillies jersey?” I called the front office of the Phillies and told them how I felt. They can play with kids in the stands, but running over the dummy was simply wrong, and that kids would get the wrong impression. Apparently, they didn’t care. The next time we were in Philadelphia, I confronted the Phanatic. I told it not to use my jersey anymore, and so the next time he did, I was forced to act. I went right up to it and body slammed it to the turf. I often wondered how it got my jersey, and then I found out how. Steve Sax would give it the jerseys because my players thought it was a funny thing to do. Are those comments by Lasorda or something? I'm confused.

I'm going to get a new mountain bike (mine is absolutely thrashed and trashed...I've probably had it for 10 years) and I was going to see if anyone here has any recommendations. I'm not necessarily looking to break the bank, but I definitely want a good bike with shocks and all that jazz so when I go up into the mountains and ride trails it will be relatively comfortable (I also will ride on the street as well). I was looking at Costco and I found this one (my work pays for half of it too which is cool): http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?...&lang=en-US

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 13, 2007 -> 09:40 AM) I'd do that Dodgers deal in a god damn heartbeat but Ned Colletti would hang up half way through the word Contreras. I agree, the Dodgers just don't have any interest in acquiring starting pitching. Dye is the guy the Dodgers would be very very interested in.

If you deal with the Yanks, you go for Melky and two projectable arms unless of course you get them to bite on giving up Phillip Hughes.

All I can say is wow.

I for one am glad Reynolds is back. I miss him and Kruky together on baseball tonight.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 06:22 PM) Buehrle>Verlander Career wise yes...but upside wise I'd say no. I Freaking love watching Verlander pitch, especially now that his slider is getting even sicker and his changeup is getting a lot better. The guy is flat nasty. QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 08:54 PM) Nope -- you only forfeit it if the pick is #16 or lower (ie 16-30). We might lose our second rounder, but not our first. Edit: Nevermind, mis-read your pick and your right, this club is likely going to be selecting top 10 unless it makes some serious changes.

Happy Birthday to one of the FutureSox guns....too bad he didn't get to celebrate a little early by seeing his team play in a super. Hope it was a good one buddy

Noon Central time right? Sweet, I'm going to watch some of this one.

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 05:35 PM) Can you explain to me what "signability issues" means? Signability typically relates to high school seniors or collegiate juniors as both have leverage. A collegiate junior can be asking for a huge sum of money (higher than the slot money) and he has some leverage as he could opt to go back to school and hope to improve his draft status (so essentially he can put a gun to the team head to step up the offer or he stays in school). In the case of a high school player, signability typically relates to guys with high potential that either have high salary demands (ie well over 6 figures to sign) or strong commitments to college. In this case teams may shy away in the early rounds because they figure if they were to draft the guy that it is going to take a bloody ransom to sign them so at that point they continue to fall and fall and if a team wants to take a chance on him they know they are going to do so having to give the guy way more than slot money (still close to the couple million he is probably asking for). Sometimes a team will take these sort of guys in the 10 or 20th round (Sox took BA' 66 or 67 rated prospect right around the 22nd round in this years draft and also did something similar when they took John Danks brother) and than try to make a serious offer (giving them top 2 round money). Danks brother was a guy that turned down a pretty good offer from the Sox because he wanted to stay in school. However, more vaguely speaking, signability would relate to any player that has serious salary demands. So say one highly touted first round pick is repped by Boras and is asking for an 6-8 million bonus (maybe he's rated #1 on your teams draft board) but another prospect is likely to sign for a 2-3 million bonus (maybe this guy is rated #4 on your draft board) than your team may go with the guy that is the easy sign and save the money. An example of this is when the Brewers opted to draft LaPorta, whose an incredibly talented bat but he also is considered an easier sign because he's a college senior with no leverage who wasn't quite projected to go as early as he did. Hopefully that helps a bit, even though my explanation was kind of all over the place.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...deoid=741851440

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 03:28 PM) Any trade I bring up that involves Buehrle comes with the automatic qualifier that the White Sox have tried but feel they will not be able to re-sign Mark. I want Buehrle re-signed and if it took a 5 year, $15M contract to get it done I'm all for it but if the Sox feel they will not be able to lock him up then I'd be all for trading him for the best deal out there as opposed to picking up a few draft picks for him. Gotcha...I bite on that. I just think the Sox need to make sure if they move Buehrle they are getting some potential impact guys and guys that are able to stick around for a long time. What would the Yanks give up for a package involving Buehrle (could the Yanks get desperate enough to give up Phillip Hughes??). What about the Mets or potentially the Braves. I doubt the Dodgers/Pads/Angels would be interested in Buehrle though. And no, I don't think the Yanks would deal Hughes....but Melky Cabrerra and some of there other prospects could be an interesting package.

The Sox haven't spent a ton of money on draft picks so you can't really correlate the money to the farm system. The Angels on the other hand spend an absolute fortune on draft picks and other guys and because of it have a fantastic system. Albeit, they also have done a good job developing and scouting.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 03:07 PM) The problem is the Brewers would have little chance or desire to match what Buehrle gets on the open market after 07', so they likely are looking at him as a two-month rental. Hard to justify trading Weeks for a rent-a-player (even Buehrle) when your franchise is just starting to build upon all its young players. That said, were they they to believe they have a chance at the postseason.... Believe me, if Gallardo was possible, I'd be all over it...but I am certain he's untouchable. Weeks, on the other hand... Ya, I wouldn't expect the Brewers to make such a move, but they may just be serious about winning things now (although I think they would be smarter making a smaller move and not forcing the issue, because if they play things right they should be good for a real long time).

I think the Cards could consider this sort of deal if they were willing to swing other guys to get the prospects necessary to make the deal. Because on there own, they don't have the upper echelon prospects I'd be interested in if the club was giving up a pitcher of Buehrle's caliber. Special pitchers command special prospects (and multiple ones at that in return). Corey Rasmus is a good starting point, but they need to package it around 2-3 more good prospects. I would however, potentially bite on a Molina, Rasmus, Waingright type of deal for Buehrle. Molina is the catcher of the present and future. I think he's a bit over-rated, but he's a very good athlete with a strong arm and his bat has improved (not much of a power hitter though). This also allows the club to move AJ for prospects and gets the club a lot younger at this position (I also think Hall is a very solid platoon guy to go with Molina). Wainwright is now pitching in the rotation, gets good sink IIRC, and had a very successful first full season out of the pen last season. He has struggled in the rotation and I think that is because he may not have enough pitches to succeed as a starter (but overall he gets good life on his stuff). Rasmus, for those that don't know, is probably the Cards #1 prospect and is considered a 5 tool outfielder. He has shown a ton of patience in the minors and has decent speed and is supposed to be a pretty darn good defensive outfielder with 20-30 HR power. He is 21 and has hit 10 (22 doubles) HR's thus far in the Texas league.

I don't think I'd trade Buehrle for Weeks. Starting pitchers like Buehrle don't grow on trees and Weeks is no sure fire thing. I realize some people aren't as huge of Buehrle fans as me, but he's got insane value. He'd easily get 15 or so per year over 5 years on the open market and I'd imagine you could get the two best prospects at a minimum for him.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) I think....and hope....he meant in our minor league system. Ya, I was specifically talking about our system. QUOTE(fathom @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) I think....and hope....he meant in our minor league system. Ya, I was specifically talking about our system.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 12:18 PM) Thank you. Floyd has actually pitched very well recently. Let's not write the guy off as a bust just yet. The kid is all of a whopping 24 years old right now. He also has the best stuff in the minors and that is based on multiple reports I've gotten as well as another member here has gotten.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 10:03 AM) No. It was to ref Mike's comment about Sox fans being bandwagoneers. My comments in green are my serious opinions. I'm not surprised you'd agree. Everyone on that coast is fake. No, I agree with the comments you made (not the green sarcasm color). I think they were dead on.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 10:16 AM) I doubt they would be mentioning additional charges and toxicology tests in the case of a professional athlete unless they had a reason to be suspicious of him. Those kind of things aren't mentioned in most accidents. Based on what I know from a friend that was completely sober and involved in a similar type of accident (with a fatality involved), it is standard procedure to put them through all those sort of tests and wait till the results are back. It is just in this case it is an athlete so it was mentioned.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 10:13 AM) And this is the exact type of reason that John Paxson wanted nothing to do with Smith. Cause he ran a stop sign and got in a car accident? That happens and so far I haven't seen them indicate any wrong doing of Smith. Now if he was boozing or something I'd quickly retract that statement but I feel very sorry for Smith.

Don't get me wrong, this team is capable of winning, but to win it is going to have to make some adjustments to wake this thing up and Jermaine Dye is the type of move that could bring in some serious athlete's and fast.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 09:59 AM) But even then in that little statement you just made, you are telling the fans you are quitting. A statement like that doesn't say we want to get better for 2008, it says that we are quitting and this one player deserves better than to stay here. That perception is very important, I cannot stress that enough. Who cares, Dye isn't playing good. You aren't saying your quitting, you are saying what is going on isn't working. If the club doesn't make moves it has the potential to suck for the next 5 to 10. If it makes the right moves it could either spark itself and give it a shot for the second half or at least give it a shot to compete in the next couple years.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 09:56 AM) It's amazing...we won the 2005 World Series with a team that was playing above it's respective heads and was incredibly lucky. That luck has changed...dramatically. Who would have thought that this team would be hitting so poorly? Who would have thought the bullpen would have blown up to this extent? How about this injury bug (and don't give me the Erstad, Pods crap, Dye was considered an "injury risk" too when he came here and that worked out ok). I don't know if you can trade people just to change luck. This team is pressing. And trade talk certainly doesn't help that. If something comes along that helps the team, I say do it. But until then, try to win with the team that brung ya. JMHO...fire away. The 05 Sox were not lucky. They were a fantastic defensive team, with a solid offense that could manufacture runs and a studly pitching staff and pen. It was one of the more dominant teams in the recent era when you factor in all the strenghts that club had (albeit I know a lot of people whined about the offense because it wasn't one that would put up 10 plus runs a ton but it did consistently get the runs necessary). Obvioulsy people will say the club was lucky based on the number of one run games it won, but that was because the bullpen was stellar, the defense was good, and the team could get a run off a leadoff walk because they had a guy like Pods that could snag extra bases.

QUOTE(Steff @ Jun 12, 2007 -> 09:45 AM) I'm ok with that. I do not agree with this at all. Those that spend the money are smart, knowledgeable, and passionate fans who despite not spending the money, if that's what they choose, still follow the team religiously. Those jumping off cliffs and throwing in the towl at the first sign of struggles and/or rebuilding are the bandwagoneers, IMO, of course. Maybe, maybe not. Still, doing what he did was bulls*** and the players let him know in the form or t-shirts they wore every day in the clubhouse and under their uniforms for the remainder of the season which read "we just might be dumb enough to win this". He has yet to make another mistake of that magnitude. Is that in green for sarcasm cause I totally agree with your post Steff. I also think it is ludicrious to sit here and not make some sort of moves. Plus, Kenny worrying about what Ozzie does is a bit different because if Ozzie does too much he gets fired and gives the Sox a horrific perception, but when it comes to the day to day baseball operations you can't focus too much on what the fans think (and I really shouldn't say fans...rather the casual fans, because I think most of more intelligent baseball fans will realize moves need to be made and this "offense" needs to get younger and quick). I do disagree with a couple people when it comes to the farm system, I think Sweeney and Fields are keepers (I never thought I'd say that about Fields) while I could give two craps about BA and I doubt BA will be around past the trade deadline. Right now, I'd strongly consider moving Dye now. Dye could bring in some young talent and energy. See if that can make a difference (try to acquire a front line starting prospect and a front line outfield prospect). Than at that point you could hold off making additional moves. I'd hold onto MacDougall (unless we get a stellar offer because he has a fantastic arm and is signed to a very good deal, same goes for Aardsma as I still think both have good futures at the major league level). You could than take a holding pattern after moving Dye and than if things still don't improve, I'd turn to the next level which would be trying to move Iguchi (unless of course we think he's going to be a Type A compensation as I think we'd get a lot more value with the draft picks than what the club would get via trade). I'd also think you have to consider moving AJ if in one of the deals the team acquired a very good young catching prospect ready to share time with Toby Hall (I think AJ would have a good deal of value on the market to the right team, potentially a club like the Angels, although Mike Napoli has started to hit). I think it is important to get a catcher that can actually throw runners out (I also have no problem if the club holds onto AJ). AJ, Iguchi, Dye can all be moved, imo. Podsednik if he comes back healthy and does something could still help a contender looking for a spark at the top of the order. You move him simply to open up another spot, same could potentially be done for Erstad (both of those guys are gone at the end of the year so why not give it a shot and see if you could get some lower level prospects for them). Yes...that leaves a lot of holes, but I'd imagine the club would be able to acquire some things and could still buy other parts (parts that it feels will be valuable for the next couple of years) and you also have to remember you still have a rotation of Garland, Buehrle, Vazquez, Danks and Contreras (I'd hope they could get Contreras and be able to convince him of a trade) which means this team still contends next season (its just a matter of getting time to evaluate guys this season). So I sell AJ, Iguchi, Dye and potentially one of Buehrle/Contreras (perfect case has you convincing Contreras of a deal and yes a contender would be all over that, while you than offer Buehrle a fat contract). I than buy on an outfielder or two (using prospects not named Gio, Sweeney, Fields rather guys like McCulloch, Broadway, etc). Even if Mark gets a 4 million dollar raise from last season, you've cut salary in AJ (4-5 mill, Iguchi 4 mill or so, Dye 7.5 mill or so, Pods 2 mill or so, Contreras (10 or so), Erstad (saving his option from next year).