Chisoxfn

Gonzalez and Lopez are both slick fielders, too bad neither can hit. I think Lopez has a career as a backup though and Getz could turn into a decent 8 or 9 hole hitter.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/news/...12steroids.html I was really high on Valido when we drafted him, and thought for sure we had drafted our future SS. But the steroid case, and subsequent injury have turned me completely off of him. Would be great to see him come back with an assumed steroid free good year and retake his place as our best infield prospect. I guess I want to see him prove that he can play without help. He's still young enough to turn it around. I think he's way under-rated right now and I'm kind of looking for him to have a big time season where he re-establishes himselves as a pretty darn good all around SS prospect (never will he hit for power but I think the hope is that his speed, defense, and baseball smarts will allow him to get away with a lack of power; plus when I've watched him he seems to show a pretty good eye and I think he can develop into a .280 or so hitter and with that and a good eye you can have a long career when you play the D he can play).

Smart job by both MLB and DirectTV. I got to be honest, I don't see a problem in what MLB is doing because they are getting so much more money and are going to force a lot of people directly into there own online service which they have a much greater margin on. It sucks cause I'd prefer to have my games on tv as opposed to having to deal with hooking my laptop up to the tv and dealing with the lower quality but it still beats not seeing the Sox and I don't blame MLB for taking that fat contract. And over the long haul, lets be honest the only people effected by this are the big time die hard baseball fans and none of us are going to actually boycott our favorite sport just because of this deal (no way, no how).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 02:21 PM) Yeah the 700K demo is legit but any Spring Training games you watch are going to be of lesser quality than anything you see during the regular season. Just saying. Thats what I figured, which is why I thought it was weird that I couldn't really notice the difference on my big screen between the 700K and the 350K spring broadcast. But I probably should look on my computer screen and I'm sure I'd notice more of a difference. Either way this is gonna be the ultimate distraction when things get slow at work and there is a day game, haha.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 02:01 PM) How are you hooked up to your TV? Also, does the MLB.tv package allow you to watch full screen on your computer? I noticed you can't watch the demo in full screen. My TV has a PC input on the back of it so I just picked up a VGA cable for the cheap and plugged it into the back of the tv and leave it plugged in and than I just plug the other end into my laptop when needed. QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 02:09 PM) Spring Training games are broadcast in 350K by the way and yes you can watch in fullscreen. The demo was in 700K though right? The spring game I saw looked pretty solid (it was the first Sox/Rockies game...I watched a few minutes just to see how it looked). On a sidenote, you know what would be smart...MLB finding a way to allow users to watch on there tv's through xbox360's and ps3 since both systems have online capabilities (albeit the Microsoft doesn't allow you to browse the web). Personally speaking I think that would be a good business decision for them.

Well I bit the bullet and bought the mlb.tv premium. I honestly can't tell the difference in the picture quality between the 350 and 700 on my tv (only thing in 700 I've seen is the demo of the Cardinals so maybe I'm missing something). That said it isn't horrible but I still have fear of the stupid lag time issues that mlb.tv has had over the past couple years with the streaming games. I was impressed that I have a connection rate of 2884 though. Still I wish I could still just watch it on cable in high quality (even if its not HD) and knowing if my internet s***s out or wireless s***s out I got no worries.

QUOTE(shipps @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 05:56 AM) What would be the best forum to sell a car privately especially at what would be an expensive enough price to pay my car off? I hear ebay is pretty darn good when it comes to selling cars. Craigs list could be solid as well. I say if you can get out of it and sell it for more than your pay-off that it would be a go. Than use the difference on a downpayment and you should have credit so your rate will be less and just go with something less expensive.

1. Most Improved - Mark Buehrle - He will be back to being a front line ace and he will sign an extension to stay in Chicago. 2. Most Dissapointing - Bobby Jenks - Don't ask me why, but I have some question-marks when it comes to Jenksy. I should say the only way things will be dissapointing from him is if he is injured. Otherwise I'm leaning with Jermaine Dye, mainly in the sense that he won't have another MVP like year, but still a solid one. 3. X Factor - Bullpen. I have confidence in our veteran starters so I won't call the starting rotation the x-factor, but I am not so sure about the pen as a whole and if it steps up and dominates this team will dominate as well.

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 07:39 AM) the others already have connections to the outside world, he was probably there to protect that place from other people stealing anything of help. Umm....maybe I'm being dumb, but didn't they say in the episode or at least Sayid mentioned it that they others probably lost satellite connections when the hatch exploded which makes you think maybe they were there (as this was originally the hub of communication to the outside island) to see if they could in fact restore it. QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 08:37 AM) I thought it was great. Back to the old Lost filled with action and surprise and not boring love triangle crap. I thought Sayid's flashback was better in that it was a brief interruption of the action on the island and not the other way around. I don't trust Roussaeu....I think she's one of them. Exactly...this was a top notch episode.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 09:00 AM) Wow. 91? I saw him pitch Monday, but I didn't see the radar (no display anywhere I could find). He looked decent, but that is huge if his velocity is back up to that point. I may need to change my statement about MB being a disappointment next year... I just remember seeing a clip somewhere. I also remember a quote from Graffy turning around and asking the catcher if Mark was throwing harder this year. So I don't think he's consistently doing it but his velocity is back and I'd imagine he'll be more in the 86-89/90 MPH range. I have only seen the WGN game so I can't comment on how he's actually pitched.

Wow...the Expos deal was terrible and the Mets trade was horrible. Thanks for that info Rock.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 08:56 AM) He was downright spent last year. I have already liked what i saw this year. I believe his fastball avg speed last year was the second or third slowest in the league at about 84 mph. His years of not really working out in the off-season caught up to him. I really do think Mark has the ability to be a Glavine type of pitcher (albeit he's more like a less dominant left handed version of Maddux and no he's nowhere near as good as Maddux who in my mind is one of the 20 best pitchers ever). This off-season he apparently realized that as you get older you have to work harder and I think he's going to be much more like his old self. Its not like he ever relied on amazing stuff, but when you do lose that much off your fastball it means that inevitably all your pitches velocities get closer and teams just start to flat out tee off on you.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 08:51 AM) He was probably thinking of his own career where failing to go to the playoffs after they went to the World series got him fired. Of course it could be the fact that his team went from first to worst, and he acquired greats like mo Vaughn, and traded away horrible prospects like Jason Bay and Melvin Mora. I think hes trying to parallel our 90 win performance after winning the world series with his 82 win performance after appearing in theirs. I didn't realize the Mets originally had Bay. Who did they get from the Padres in the Bay deal? I know Bay eventually went to the Pirates for Giles.

Iowa....Hawkeyes...DAR.

I've been one of his biggest critics from time to time but I really don't think he's on the hot seat. Ozzie will never get fired, but I do think when his career ends he'll likely resign.

QUOTE(Colorado Sox Fan @ Mar 8, 2007 -> 05:31 AM) When I first saw this on the ESPN ticker I was shocked, but I get the logic. Replacing him will cost more in the future. As for MB, he needs to show me the second half of last year was an aberration. If he does, then I pay him the going rate. A 91 MPH fastball in spring training was all I needed to see. I have full faith in Buehrle being the guy we all have known and loved as Sox fans and not the guy that was absolutely downright abysmal over the 2nd half of last season.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 7, 2007 -> 08:48 PM) Anyone who questions Mike Caruso's talent is a f***ing idiot. The man had and likely still has (he's still only 29) all the talent in the world. He played some solid defense his rookie year in 1998 as a 21 year old rookie his defense only slipped the following year in '99 likely because of an unwillingness to improve on his game and some extraciricular activities that may hamper an athletes abilities. Anyone who hits .306 with 22 SBs and an 89 OPS as a 21 year old rookie obviously has some f***ing talent damnit. If he wanted to he could probably earn his way back onto a team as a backup infielder but he's likely a little occupied with other more important dealings in some latin country to work on his game at all. Caruso was awesome for a rookie. The sky was the limit for him and man could that guy run. He could have turned into a consistent 50-75 base stealer. Also, lets not forget his rookie season was something like his first year above a ball and he hit .300 doing it. Too bad he had a little dope problem and already thought he was amazing.

I'd just like to say that I really really like our GM.

You draft based on talent early on but eventually it gets to the point where you start drafting on an organizational need basis and in those instances its just something you got to do. However, it should be noted if you ever think a guy has high upside (whether early or late in the draft) you never pass him up for someone else because they have need. The thing is later on in the draft you usually have guys you are leaning to and they fill multiple needs and you go with it.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 11:26 AM) UNI isn't a bad loss, the other two definitely are though. Sorry Jas, but Iowa isn't even in the discussion, they need to win the tourny. And win the tourney they will

QUOTE(Hideaway Lights @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 02:45 PM) no cheating! 5 questions about the 2000's era of AL baseball 1) The White Sox have the 4th highest cumulative win total since 2000 at 617. Can you name the top three in order? 2) Seven teams have over 600 victories. Can you name all seven? 3) Two teams have an over 50 game disparity between their lowest win total and highest win total. Name them. 4) What team has the lowest variance in terms of disparity between lowest and highest win total at 13 games? 5) Which 4 teams have won less than 500 games in the 7 seasons dating back to 2000? Answers later 1. Cardinals, Yankees, Braves (if not them than I'm guessing Angels). 2. Cards, Yanks, Braves, White Sox, Red Sox, Angels, A's 3. Detroit Tigers, Florida Marlins 4. White Sox 5. Tampa, Detroit, Kansas City, Colorado

QUOTE(lord chas @ Mar 5, 2007 -> 10:31 PM) why would any team give the bears more than one draft pick when they have all the leverage? Because they don't have all the leverage. The Bears have leverage as Briggs would have to sit out an entire season if he really was so pissed and quite frankly thats just not that great off an option when he could at least be making just over 7 mill with a one year deal with the Bears. We hold the leverage as Briggs has no options really. Now that he's asked to be traded we can shop him around and my hope is for a first this year and next year or a first this year and a 2nd this year as well as something like a 3rd or 4th next year. Its only fair (unless of course the first rounder we get is top 10). Sorry but Briggs is a stud and we should be more than willing to hold onto him for a year (or at least play it off like we are willing to do so). I do expect Briggs to be dealt though and for the Bears to have a bevy of picks to work with. QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 05:16 AM) Briggs also turned down a reported 6 year 33 million dollar contract last year with a nice fat signing bonus. His lack of respect card is bullsh*t. And the difference between Adalious Thomas paycheck and Lance Briggs paycheck lies in one difference in their game: the ability to rush the quarterback. Thomas is regarded as a pass-rushing linebacker in the 3-4 defense, who can line up at end and rush in a straight up stance if needs be. Thomas would be right there with Briggs in money, if not making more. Thomas is also substantially older. I think with both on the open market, Briggs gets just a bit more than Thomas.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 03:46 PM) How does signing Vazquez for less than he'd get in arbitration mean that the White Sox have less money available? The only way to free up more money would have been to not offer Vazquez arbitration and therefore let him walk with no compensation, at which point we very well might be playing the market for a $12 million a year mediocre starting pitcher somewhere. It doesn't, what it does is mean barring any serious injuries we won't have a completely decimated rotation a year from now. We could have been facing some really ugly prospects a year from today if we weren't able to get at least one of our vets signed to an extension (hopefully one more during the year) which means we will only have 1-2 and a max of 3 rotation spots opening up over the next few years if all goes fine (and to me thats more than enough spots to give our young guys an opportunity). Remember prospects don't instantly pan out and put up numbers and planning on counting on more than one raw pitcher in the rotation (before you account for injuries) is just a bad idea for a contending team and now I think we'll be able to prevent that.

QUOTE(winninguglyin83 @ Mar 6, 2007 -> 02:40 PM) All this talk about Buehrle ... wonder what Garland thinks of this deal. isn't he outta here after 2008? Ya, my guess is the Sox will talk to him about extending at some point this season if he's doing well and if he is pitching and Buehrle is pitching well they probably offer them each simliar deals and see which one bites (making either of them the likely highest paid pitchers on the staff, albeit not by much more than Javy and company).

Wow, first time I've logged on since early this morning and I log on to a very pleasant surprise. This seems like a more than fair deal for both sides and I'm really glad we have another pitcher signed. This means if we want to we will have at least 3 of our veteran starting pitchers back in 08 which is a major plus, as it means that if one our 5th starters pan out this year than we have them in the rotation and are just adding one spot and if one of them doesn't than Kenny only has to add one or so more starters as opposed to 2 or so.