Chisoxfn

QUOTE(Steff @ Dec 2, 2006 -> 02:58 PM) He looked strange doing the golf with the remote thing. Not holding an actual club was somthing I didn't think he would like. He seemed ok with it though. The thing I am worried about is that he would get bored with it fast and it would end up collecting dust. And at that time you mail it to me and we can get someone banned

This isn't that awful of a move. Considering the FA market if we have Pods and than find a way to pick up another speed guy via trade and we should be in decent shape at the top of the order (since we'll have given Ozzie speed). I also think we'll see Pods have a better all around season (even If he's not my first choice, I don't expect him to be near as brutal and I could see worse options at the top of the order).

QUOTE(SuperSteve @ Apr 14, 2005 -> 06:24 PM) It is awesome. I do not play it, but I watch it all the time in my neighbors. He is a level 45. Three of my other friends are 60s. I would play it, but costs alot of money. I don't like alot of stuff like that, but there is so much to it, you can't help but watch it. I give it a thumbs up, and that is from a guy who only plays baseball and grand theft autos. Good to see ya around old fella. You still living the life at MSU? On a sidenote, for Xbox 2k hockey...for 360 EA NHL....those games = amazingly fun on multiplayer.

Happy Bday to STOA's biggest fan. Had I known your bday was coming up I'd have given you a shout out on the show. Hope its a good one!!!!

I just started watching it about 2 weeks ago and after seeing just one episode I decided I had to catch up and downloaded the prior shows and am slowly starting to catch up. I was curious as to whether anyone else is enjoying this show? Obviously its not realistic but don't ask me why but I like these world coming to an end drama's. Plus for some strange reason it reminds me of Red Dawn, one of my favorite favorite movies when I was a kid (that and Under Siege). In a matter of week's its become one of the few shows on my DVR, aside from pretty much all of NBC on Thursday nights.

QUOTE(ChiSox9 @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 08:58 AM) I wouldnt understand trading away a key role player set to make $4M next year and bring in a "Slow as Mud" FA looking to make at least $4.5M plus. Not to mention their BA/OBP/SLG are almost identical... only thing Molina brings is a higher average against Lefties .358 vs .270. not to mention... from the San Fran Chronical: Those who watched Molina in Toronto say he has declined defensively, in blocking pitches and throwing out runners, but still calls a good game and handles pitchers well. A career .275 hitter, he batted .284 with 19 homers and 57 RBIs in 2006. AJ's Defense is there, can throw out runners but more importantly can handle OUR pitching staff extreemly well. I'm one of AJ's biggest fans, but I'd be the first to also say that Molina is one of the few catchers in the game I'd take over him. Now if he's not healthy or something like that, thats one thing, but the guy is superior in every defensive category to AJ and offensively they are close (although AJ is the better avg guy) and overall offensively I probably take AJ over Bengie. AJ does have attitude though which I love.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Dec 1, 2006 -> 08:48 AM) Meh, I like that idea. It's better than most others to decide home-field advantage. I still think best record in baseball should decide it, but this is the next best alternative (way better than it used to be with it rotating). And I must agree, it definately makes the ASG more interesting and the last couple ASG's have been pretty damn good.

I think the MVP (if the numbers are similar) should go to the guy that helps his team win and get into the playoffs (afterall, how valuable are you if your team doesn't get to the playoffs....the real goal). You think your the best hitter, you get a silver slugger award or the AP Offensive player of the year award. The MVP is more than that and I was stunned when Howard won it cause Pujols should have won it.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 10:44 PM) Fields isn't replace Crede's production. But that being said third is one of our strengths. We can afford to deal Crede more than say AJ, in that we have no capable starting catcher. Crede's value might be higher than it will ever be right now. Technically we could deal AJ and just sign a stud defensive catcher like Molina whose as clutch as it comes with the bat (he really is). He's just slow as mud.

QUOTE(shawnhillegas @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 07:04 PM) You can say Anderson was competent or mediocre or good-enough-for-a-rookie, but you cannot say he was solid with the bat. Seriously. The only thing you could say is awful or brutal or terrible because anything less would be far too nice and a big fat lie (I don't care what his latter splits said because he was still an awful hitter with some serious holes in his swing). Defensively he was a stud, but later in the year his defense wasn't as good.

Overall Selig has been a damn fine commissioner.

Ya and you can do that without trading for a zillion prospects. I don't understand everyone that thinks we need to get a ton of prospects now or we will suck later. We don't have to move guys. Have you heard the Sox complain about not having the resources to spend 115 million? No, you haven't. We don't have that old of a team, we already have 3 of 6 starters on the right side of 30 and two of ones over 30 are consistent 200 innings a year guys to boot. We have a first baseman, 3rd baseman and SS that should be here a while, we have tons of OF prospects, a young closer and a few relievers under our control for a while. I don't give two s***s about 5 or 10 years down the road because the best way of taking care of 5 years down the road is by fielding a good team now. With that the Sox will be able to have a high payroll and will be able to consistently retool here or there and stay good for a long time. Just look at the Braves, how often did they actually trade there better players for prospects (not often?). They usually let those guys walk from time to time. However, they got draft pick compensation for those guys and were able to develop a player here and there while also making trades for new guys that may be able to fill the holes of the guys that left via FA that may not make as much money. By the way, I should say I'd gladly be the Yankees. They consistently field a team that is capable of winning the world series and thats all I ask. By making some of the trades you guys suggest we destroy our teams chances of winning now and bank on those guys all developing as planned to win later. The odds are not in our favor to win on that theory and thats why you see very few bad teams figure things out and become good. If it were that easy every team in baseball would have small payrolls and consistently dump guys for prospects while still winning.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 02:22 PM) Rafael Soriano and Jeff Clement would be 2 guys I could see us certainly being interested in if we traded Garcia to Seattle. Maybe if the Sox decided to trade Uribe as well, they could go after either Lopez or Betancourt. Don't know if Lopez is capable enough defensively at SS though, but he's the better offensively out of the 2. Not worth it. That deal makes us a lot worse. I'd like Soriano a lot more if he wasn't so damn prone to injury. And yes Clement was a top pick, but he's still a long ways away and I wouldn't consider him an upper echelon prospect as of this moment. Plus I am not a big fan of acquiring catching prospects considering there success rate is absolutely horrendous. You guys got to understand...crappy teams trade their better players for packages full of prospects that will have little effect on this years roster (and future years rosters) and most of the time those crappy teams stay crappy because those deals never pay off (plus they do lose a lot of those guys once they become good due to salary limitations). Ken Williams job right now is to make the Sox better. To make us a better team you do not get prospects a few years away from helping us. Now if you get prospects that could help us a bit this year as well as every day players that help us now, I can see that move making sense (helps us now and later) but none of these deals do that. Soriano would be nice out of the pen but I'm not trading Garcia for him.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 30, 2006 -> 01:24 PM) Did Durham leave on any bad terms? I know it was the trade for Adkins, but was it on bad terms? The reason I ask is even last year I remember seeing Mrs.Durham in the crowd, and remember DJ talking about how they still live here. Steff would be the best to answer this, but I thought he was very sad over leaving the club. I don't think the Sox handled his trade very well, IIRC (based on comments I think steff has posted in here in the past). However, I also remember him really liking the organization and I definately think he'd like coming back here (but again, Steff is the one who'd have superior idea on this subject). But Ray's wife still comes to games and I think they still live here (at least part of the year) so I could see him coming back at 2 yr 15 mill or so with options for a 3rd year or something along those lines. Maybe he'd even take a bit of a discount (well an up front discount that could be made up with incentive clauses that could reward him nicely).

Awesome. I'm hoping somehow it gets picked up yet again. For a while I thought last season was gonna be it.

Kart = amazing (I play the super nintendo version from time to time). A great dreamcast game was that tennis game. That thing rocked.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 09:27 AM) Gload has been with the Sox for 3 years now, makes dirt, and really has no spot on the team. If he really was that good, why wouldn't he have been traded? I like Gload, an happy to see him back, but I think the role he is in now is the right one. If Gload was a starter for the Sox next year, you would have alot of unhappy White Sox fans by July, just a hunch. I have very little doubt that if I ran a team one of the first things I'd do would be to pick up Gload for pennies on the dollar because the guy would come in and hit .280 with 15 HR and a decent amount of runs driven in from left field (and yes I think he can play out there just fine if you let him play there). I wouldn't even be shocked to see him hit .300 over the course of a full season. Yes, I think Gload is that good and have thought so from the first time I saw him down in Charlotte. QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 09:57 AM) It's very possible Rock. I just would think if thats the case with Ross, he would have been given that shot already, with the Sox or with someone else. You guys got to remember. He was dubbed as a first baseman for a long time and has since expanded his arsenal. We already know he's a good defensive first baseman (when he plays it consistently) and in the field he isn't bad. He's also got decent wheels and is a smart base runner. Oh and did I mention the only other two places he was in the minors he hammered the ball but was stuck behind legends like Todd Helton and Mark Grace.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 05:22 PM) Balta, I think that could change this year. I think that for a few reasons. 1. Mark/Count/Vaz/Jon all have logged a TON of innings, and I think we saw some of the effects down the stretch last season. 2.Brandon in the rotation. We all know that he really got jacked around last season, and it could hurt us this season. Ain't a chance he pitches 200 innings this year, at least not a chance he doesnt get hurt. His body just isn't used to that yet. Ozzie and Kenny know this, so I think your going to see the pen more this year,as we should. 3. The importance Ozzie and Kenny have put on the bullpen this off-season. Whenever asked about this off-season, that seems to be one of the 1st things to come up. Ozzie has made some awful moves, but I really do believe he has learned alot, especially in 2006, and you will see a little change in philosophy with the staff this year. Plus while Ozzie may not use his relievers a lot, he's the type of manager that tends to put all of his relievers into key situations so that final guys isn't just going to get mop up duties, he's more than likely to see action with the bases loaded in the 6th inning of a game.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 08:06 AM) I know Quinn will go #1, because the hype machine has been moving on him for almost two years now. Even though he has shown no real ability to lead a team to success, the physical aspects of him as a player will continue to draw praise, ESPECIALLY playing at the "great" Notre Dame. Troy Smith isn't even going in the first round huh? I want to know where you people are getting this. Does everyone think he is an Eric Crouch rerun or something? As the person who orginally stated Quinn is better than Smith and will be the higher NFL pick and the better NFL player, I also want to mention I fully expect Smith to go in the first round and likely in the top half of it as well. I just don't think he's as good as Quinn (as a pro QB) but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the tools to be a damn good QB (they just aren't as good as Quinn's, imo).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 05:09 PM) I for one agree that this sort of deal makes a ton of sense, but personally, I think a better option than Donnely is to look at one of the former prospects the Angels have soured on, specifically Dallas McPherson. He is at least a 3rd baseman by trade, he's a lefty batter (which means if necessary he could platoon with Fields), he has a little more ML experience, he's not going to be playing anywhere for the Angels this year as far as I can tell, and he does still have a high ceiling if he can ever stay healthy. Furthermore, I for one am still happy sticking with the knuckleballer out of the bullpen as the 4th righty and 6th guy out. As we all know, Ozzie hardly ever uses his bullpen, so it's going to be difficult for Haegs to be exposed anyway, but I think we wind up better off with this setup than the other way. Haeger gave me some confidence that he could perform out of the bullpen as a long-man by doing exactly that in September, and I would like to see him at least be slotted into that role next year. If he fails...well, that's why he's the 6th guy out. And I for one also would vastly prefer an outfield of Figgins/Anderson/Dye to one of Podsednik/Figgins/Dye. Defensively the former is much, much better, it's several million dollars cheaper, and it has a much higher ceiling. With MacDougall as one of our key relievers, we need to be extra careful that we have depth because its just a matter of time before he goes down and someone else gets a bigger role. Don't get me wrong, I love McPherson, he's a superior prospect to that of Fields (he's just not healthy) and that would be a sick platoon (especially because from time to time you could probably trot Fields out in left, although that may not be great for his development defensively but it would give him AB's). However, I don't know if the Angels give up McPherson without getting a pretty darn good prospect from us (not that I'm opposed to it). I'm probably the only one here that would include Broadway or Anderson in the deal even if we got nothing else in return (because I think it makes that much sense in the long run). I'd hate to give up Broadway (nor do I think it will take that) but if that ended up being what it took to get the deal done (with us getting McPherson or Donnelly or some other arm we like) than so be it. The downside is that Mac isn't that good and his trade value gets killed. If I made that Crawford deal it would be contingent on what else the Rays want. It would probably be too much, but if it were a straight up deal (and I'd be shocked if it was) I would do it. The rotation will be strong anyway (Vaz/Buehrle/Garland/Santana/Count) with a prospect as plan B. The deal would also be contingent upon my discussions with Ozzie and his feelings about Brandon. IF he likes Brandon and is willing to use him as a starter fine, but if he's not (and Ozzie's not going anywhere) than I'd be more likely to deal him. I'd personally prefer moving one of our other starters and sticking with Brandon (cause I think we'd get a top flight starting pitching prospect and than some for one of our other starters...plus all the financial flexibility to start resigning a couple key guys, such as Buehrle if he starts the season strong).

Both of these trade proposals would be absolutely brutal. We get worse in the immediate future with the possible chance of maybe breaking even (if that) cause I don't think either of these guys are superstar prospects nor do they fill any major needs. We shouldn't just be trading for prospects, now if we get prospects fine, but we better be upgrading our major league roster as well because there are deals out there that make us better now and in the future and this sure isn't one of them. In fact this is the type of deal that could completely blow up in our face. Not that Gonzalez doesn't seem good, he is, but I'm not giving up a front line pitcher for him (and yes Freddy is that, whether us Sox fans think that I don't care cause the rest of MLB still considers him that especially when you factor in today's market).

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 05:03 PM) Like it, and I'm sure the Knights are going to LOVE having Vazquez start for them. I agree with pretty much everything you said, and I would like to add a little bit -Because your trading starter for starter, you still are able to deal ANOTHER starter. Garcia is gone, but with Ervin on the roster, Garland/Count/Vaz/Mark can still be shipped for whatever you need. Santana>Garcia(numbers and $$$ wise) and you can STILL do what you want to do by trading another starter for prospects, or whatever. Like you said, it just makes too much sense. Ya, I meant to add a portion in there on Vaz or one of our other starters getting dealt. I'd say Buehrle, but obviously he's our only lefty and a leader and of course you have Count and his no trade clause (who is actually who I'd prefer to deal because I think he has injury concerns). But ya, we could still acquire a guy like Pelfrey for Vaz or fill some other need Kenny has identified (whether its LF/CF, depending on whether Figgins plays) or even getting us a top notch 3rd baseman. I really like it cause it keeps the team relatively similar while at the same time making a bit of a shakeup that will make us a bit better now and a lot better later (which is something Ken Williams has stated are mandatory for any deal he makes).

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 05:01 PM) This would mean that our defense is worse than last year, and any offensive upgrade made from Anderson to Figgins is negated big time by going from Crede to Josh Fields. But you see I don't think its that much of a difference. More specifically I think people undervalue Figgins who is a far better player than he was last year. Heck, even Pods (as much as I hate him) is a better player than he was last year. I'm not a big Fields fan, but we'd also have Mack's production and obviously there is no guarantee we get the same production out of Joe. Defensively we definately lose at 3rd, gain in CF (Figgins is better than the two headed monster we saw last year) and probably gain a bit in LF (just cause I think with a bit less pressure he won't play quite as brutal and will instead be the 3rd or 4th worse left fielder in all of baseball, LOL).

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 29, 2006 -> 04:57 PM) I'd like to quickly add that if we go with Figgins in CF, Pods in LF, and Fields at 3B, we might as well reserve our 4th place finish in the division. Lol, just as I made my post thinking its actually a good idea. I'd still prefer Durham, but Pods will be very affordable and I could see him bouncing back a bit. Plus with the pressure to be the only speed guy off his back I could see him doing a bit better (both defensively and on the base paths). I should also note that one of my main goals this off-season is to provide Ozzie with speed at the top of the order because I Think having that will prevent him from doing something ungodly stupid with our slower guys. Plus I think having a little speed will ensure Ozzie doesn't get super comfortable cause last year I think he was afraid to make changes because he really didn't know what to do and when he did they were just awful. With some speed he'll feel more involved and our team will fit his style of play a bit more (which I don't think is a bad thing, as long as we continue to stock our rotation). I fully think a team with those guys is capable of a world series run, especially knowing that if any of those guys play sub-par Williams would have the financial resources (and prospects) to replace them with a quality player via trade.

The more I think about it the more I make this deal even if we had to throw in someone and got nothing else in return. This deal just makes sense on so many levels. 1. Figgins - Gives Ozzie speed at the top of the order and a guy that can play CF. While he may not be the sexiest hitter ever alive, he still does a nice job getting xtra base hits and has surprising pop from time to time. More importantly he's a legit 50 base stealer year in year out. Plus he's signed to a very affordable deal. 2. Santana - Duh, we have an older rotation with a few guys due to become FA's (Buehrle/Garica). We give up Garcia and get younger but get a guy whose proven to be at least a #3 starter with the upside of being a #1 or #2 who we'd have the rights to for a lot longer (plus a lot less payroll). While Garcia may very well bounce back and be better than Santana next year, no one can tell me that the odds don't favor Earvin to be better for the next 4 years than Freddy (not to mention we probably wouldn't have Freddy those next 4 years). In addition this gives the Sox the money to sign Buehrle (if we want to) while also giving us a pretty well mixed rotation. Garland/Buehrle (if we sign him to an extension)/Santana/McCarthy are all on the right side of 30 with our lone older guy probably being 50 years old in Jose (who if healthy is still as good as anyone in the game). 3. We could get Donelly. While Donelly isn't what he once was, he still gives the Sox the final arm in the pen that they are looking for. Not only is he the final arm but he's a guy who has pitched in big time situations while being a setup man and even a closer on rare ocassions so in a worse case scenario (injuries, etc) we could use him in a crunch. Above all, we would be able to keep Pods (I never thought I'd say this) and hit him in the 2nd spot with Figgins to give us arguably as fast a 1-2 in baseball (this side of LA). I realize I slam Pods a lot, but I think having Figgins with him would take a lot of pressure off Scott and with that I think he's still a 25-35 stolen base guy (at a better success rate when he's stealing a little less as well) which would give Ozzie all the speed he needs. Iguchi drops down in the lineup replacing Crede in a sense, while Josh Fields steps in replacin Brian Anderson's rookie bat. We also have Anderson fill in as a 4th outfielder (or we could move him for a young arm) plus Sweeney/Mack who can roam around (mack filling in at 3rd from time to time). I got to admit I'd really like it: Figgy Pods Dye Thome Konerko AJP Iguchi Fields Uribe I know its not quite as good of a lineup power wise (but we have tons of power anyway) but it definately is one capable of manufacturing runs. And if Pods struggles, we would have more than enough prospects to be able to acquire an outfielder at some point in time. Rotation (obviously an additional trade could made and you could see that trade netting us a different left fielder or something else for all I know since we'd have 6 starters): Buehrle Count Garland Santana Bmac Vaz (Broadway waits in wings) Pen: Jenks MacDougall Thorty Logan Donnelly Aardsma