Chisoxfn

Was I the only person who was dissapointed with Casino Royale. I thought the new Bond was fantastic, the girls were pretty and yes there were some cool action scenes but half of the movie must have been a poker game (and if I want to watch poker I can just as well watch the World Series of Poker). That and I thought this movie severely lacked a bad guy. What exactly was Bond doing that was really "saving" the world so to speak. I thought this movie could have been one of the best Bonds ever (acting was very good) if it just had a little more depth to the story.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 09:45 PM) I'm sure he'll be above average, but imo he won't crack top 10. And he'll be FAR from the best hitter of the bunch. Alright, name 10 2nd baseman that had better offensive careers up until this stage of Soriano's career?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 09:35 PM) Don't agree with the rest either, but on this, you've got to be kidding. As bad as Morgan is as an announcer, there's no chance you put Soriano above him with the bat. Hornsby was an asshole and a Cub, but him too. Just the first two that come to mind, I'm sure there are more. Well I think Morgan is over-rated as all get up. But those are other aspects, he couldn't hold Soriano's jock with the bat. Hell Jeff Kent is a better offensive 2nd baseman than Morgan, imo. Alomar was a legend and in a total league of his own (best defensive and aside from run production numbers, best offensive one as well). When all is set and done, you take his span of actually playing 2nd base and put up those stats with any 2nd baseman in the same span and you'll see that he was a truly legendary offensive 2nd baseman. Doesn't mean he's one of the greatest offensive players of all time or anything, but during his span he's one of the all time best offensive 2nd baseman (absolutely no doubt about it). Of course I was saying this 2 and 3 years ago when everyone around seemed to slam him and think so lowly of him. I never understood why either cause the guy can flat out rake.

Jose Guillen...Jose Guillen...Jose Guillen. Although I wouldn't mind Shannon Stewart. I think Guillen will slip through the cracks though and sign a 1yr deal with an option or some incentives. He's a good player while healthy (a near all star, imo). ANd he could play CF if I recall. Probably a little older now and he's had some injuries so I don't know if that would be a good idea, but its not an awful backup plan. Plus he destroys Lefties IIRC (at least I remember him rocking them with the Angels).

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 09:11 PM) Jason, they have him pegged as their starting CFer. Per ChicagoSports.com: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines Tough, asking a 31 year old who's never played CF to play it at Wrigley. I can't see Soriano being anything better than average in CF, and there's the potential that he's really bad out there... He won't stick in CF, imo. That said he's perfectly capable of playing it. And with his bat (yes he's one of the best hitters in baseball) its still acceptable for the most part. I still think they move Murton but right now they know they have an opening in CF so if they say he's gonna play there they don't hurt Murton or anyone else's trade value. Just my 2 cents. And I think its hillarious that people call this an awful deal just because of the money. Bottom line is this guy is a great hitter whose had tons of great seasons (yes this was his best ever, but even before you could make a case that he was the greatest offensive 2nd baseman ever...although Robbie Alomar is the greatest 2nd baseman of all time). ya the money is a bit too much, but not drastically. The years are high but you know what, the Cubs aren't a small market team and they can afford higher payrolls so its not that big of a deal. When you need to make significant changes and you go out and add the best bat in FA than you know what, you've done pretty well. They still have a lot left but I can't see how you can fault the Cubs for this move, I really can't. Its one thing if they were planning on having a 60 mill payroll, but they will likely be at or around the 100 mill mark and with that you can afford to spend money. And no, the Cubs aren't going to let some other team offer Zambrano more money. Now if he leaves it will be because he decides another team offers him a better chance of winning (and that obviously could very well be the case) but it won't be because they signed Soriano to a huge contract. Its like saying the BoSox were totally stupid for paying 52 million. SUre it may not have been the best investment or the most financially savvy on, but you know what, the Red Sox are still going to make money and they have the type of payroll where they can overpay for a need even if there are more financially responsible decisions out there.

QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 11:36 AM) With the Cubs. FoxSports Link 8 years around $135 million. lol Just what the Cubs need, more guys who strike out. I'm sorry, but this is a tremendous move for the Cubs. We are talking about one of the premier offensive players in the game going to a team that needed offense and some talent at the top of the order. On top of it all they also got a very good base-stealer. Sure its a lot of money but the Cubs can afford it. Great move by the Cubs (even though the deal is too long but who the hell knows what the economics of baseball will be 8 years from now anyway and I still think you can always find teams to take guys like this off your hands 4 or 5 years from now anyway. QUOTE(Greg The Bull Luzinski @ Nov 19, 2006 -> 12:18 PM) I hate having to face him 6 times a year, but I love this signing. Embrace another era of K's and poor defense. Maybe the Trib wasn't far off in advertising Sammy's come back. Ummm...Soriano is an above average left fielder and I assume thats where he will play. And I have no doubt he'll continue to improve in LF. He has a good arm and good range.

I actually would like the Sox to sign Jose Guillen to play LF. I think we could get him at a value and while he has some attitude issues he always (and I mean always) plays the game hard.

Considering the market right now, the dumbest thing we can do is trade Garland. I'm not saying don't trade him, but you only trade him if we are getting insane value. He's signed to a very affordable deal for another 2 years and it would be foolish to give up without getting a ridiculous deal. Garcia and Buehrle have to be the first to consider or Contreras (if he'd waive his no trade) because I could see Contreras breaking down. I wouldn't be against Vaz either if we could get value for him. Basically I'd offer everyone but to get Garland you'd have to shoot for the moon to get him. I'm hoping thats Kenny's plan.

Kenny's comments made me think...don't get too excited Sox fans...the Angels aren't going to make that deal straight up.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 03:43 PM) I don't know why you want a guy who has lost 7-8 mph off his fastball who appears not to be in the greatest of shape, who makes a lot of money and can walk after the season over a guy who will be 24 on opening day and is coming off 12 and 16 win seasons. It makes absolutely no sense to me. With Lackey and if Colon can return, they don't need a guy who admits he doesn't focus on lesser opponents. Maybe offseason rest will bring some velocity back for Garcia, but we were under the same impression with Billy Koch after he lost the same amount of velocity. His workload the season before and some mechanics were being blamed. Freddy made his numbers look a lot better than the reality last year. Its quite simple, Freddy showed a plus splitter to go with already good breaking pitches and a much better feel for pitching late in the season. Mix that in with a guy who has been a 200 inning a year guy consistently, who has won big games, pitches good against contenders (historically speaking) and can absolutely dominate teams (especially when Colon will probably still have some set backs) and it makes a lot of sense, imo. The Angels aren't looking to win 2 years from now, they want to develop some guys but Moreno learned one thing last year and thats that you can't develop too much so he may be telling Stoneman, get me a proven ace, and Santana is probably the closest to getting a raise so they've decided he could be expendable (for the right price). And if they get Anderson (defensively they need help in CF) and a guy like Josh Fields (with us getting Figgins back, who they are apparently down on) and it makes a lot of sense to me.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 03:37 PM) Yeah, Greasy explained it to me. We hang one for every NCAA tourney appearance too. Probably why it never stood out to me. Think they'll finish any better than third in the state this year? Which brings up a different point.....I absolutely love all 4 state schools playing each other every year. Yes, I think we battle ISU for best in the state. And umm....we were best in the state last year (one of the best teams in the country....aside from not playing our best against Northwestern St which put them in position to lose on a ridiculously fluke 3 pointer).

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 03:24 PM) Does anyone else realize the ridiculousness of this "proposed" trade? There have been a couple of posts about how successful Freddy has been pitching in Anaheim, but then look at Santana's home numbers. Over the next 5 years, chances are Santana will win more games than Freddy and get paid a few lifetime's worth of money less, couple with the fact that Garcia could walk after 1 season, but Santana is still under the club's control for another 4 or 5. If the deal really is Santana + for Garcia, KW would have jumped at it so fast before the Angels could change their minds. For whatever reason the Angels have offered Santana in a lot of trade packages. I think they want to win now and right now they really need that top of the rotation guy. Freddy has been that in the past and I (and I'm sure if the Angels made the deal they would too) think he can be it again. You put Freddy with a horse like Lackey and if they get Colon back (another potential horse, although I wouldn't count on it) mix that with Weaver and obviously they have Saunders (who looks pretty good) mixed with Escobar and thats pretty nasty (being that Sanders would replace Colon if Colon was hurt). I can definately see it making sense. You can only have so many young guys in your rotation and win pennants (imo) and they will likely have Sanders/Weaver already in there. Plus the Angels can spend the money to resign Freddy if they want.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 02:45 PM) Iowa isn't going to be as bad as people think this year, but they won't be anything special. If all goes right they slide into the tourney. If it doesn't we go NIT. I can't see anything worse. They have some talent and have some really good recruiting classes on the way (or at least what look to be real good recruiting classes).

LOL @ ISU

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 12:25 PM) 1,000 Xbox 360's are going to be sold for $99 through Amazon.com on Thanksgiving... When and where. Is there a set time this is going to start? Cause I'm all over this.

Mathis is a superior all around prospect to Napoli. Napoli is solid but not near as hyped as he was. That said I think he's a good all around catcher, but Mathis has the chance to be one of the better backstops in the game. Oh and I'd be all over Molina. He's just another version of Henry Blanco, except he's better with the stick.

Sorry, I'm at work and just got back from a meeting. Is the speculatoin that we would get Santana and Figgins for Garica? If so where the heck do a sign. I'd run all the way home screaming like a little girl if this were to happen. If not, is it something like the Sox throwing in a Fields or Anderson (or both cause I could accept both) for the deal to happen? Both Fields and Anderson fill serious needs for the Angels. QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 17, 2006 -> 10:21 AM) You make some legitimate points. But I'm not at all enamored with Figgens. I just don't think he's that much better when we are talking trading one of starters and consider Figgens as a difference maker vs. Pods. He's better, yes. But not 'worth the upgrade' in my opinion. Its not even close, Figgins is exponentially better than Pods. Pods is garbage in the field and has no idea to handle the bat and has lost his best asset (a legit basestealer). Figgins on the other hand is young, coming off a down year (yes I know) but can bunt and handle a bat (is also a switch hitter) and if you give him one position he will be the premiere left fielder in baseball or an above average centerfielder who WILL GET BETTER. Not to mention he's an elite base stealer, definately one of the three best in the game. Its an absolute no brainer to acquire Figgins if we have the chance. Garcia/Fields/Anderson for Figgins/Santana.

By the way, in no way do I see us getting Michael Young in this deal but I thought I'd throw it out anyway and I'd have zero problem with Hurley/Danks/Arias all in the same package. At least we'd be getting two front line pitching prospects.

QUOTE(Jimbo @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 02:55 PM) speculation...it is bruce levine I was both giddy and scared at the same time. If they got Hurley plus Michael Young I'd be happy. If we got Hurley and Danks and another prospect like Volquez (or however you pronounce it) I wouldn't have a problem either since it would open the spot for Bmac (even though it wouldn't have been the spot I suspected) while at the same time giving us a boatload of near MLB ready top flight prospects (which we could than keep one of and trade the others or do any combination of the two).

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 12:32 PM) I'm just saying what I heard....Hill's finish last year has raised his stock a ton again. I think it's safe to say that 2007 is a huge year for both of them though. If I had to choose one of them to be on my team, I'm not sure who I would take. From what I know there aren't many guys with the value on the trade market as Bmac. And no Rich Hill isn't even close to being one of them. Right now McCarthy has more value than Earvin Santana (don't ask me why either).

As in we just traded him to the Rangers? Cripes two of my absolute favorites gone in one day? Is this a done deal or just speculation as of this point.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 02:44 PM) If Coop can 'fix' Aardsma, this is also a very nice insurance policy if Mac has to spend some time on the DL at some point. If, you mean when Mac spends time on the DL. That alone is why I don't want us to have Haeger in our pen. I'd rather have Haeger pitching every 5 days ready in case a starter goes down.

One thing about Aardsma is that he has a darn good arm and he was pitching pretty well for the Cubs down the stretch. This guy was a legit top notch pick with a top notch arm and I have no problem acquiring him. I think its a good move for the Cubs because Cotts gets to go to a league that hasn't adjusted to his sneaky fastball. I still like Neal a lot (one of his biggest propenents) and I would not be shocked if he came out and dominated again next year but without any quality secondary pitches its going to be rough. If we got a quality lefty in this Vazquez guy, this deal isn't so bad. In fact it could be good considering we have a guy that is cheap and under our control for a while and could turn into a front line set up guy (I'm a big Aardsma fan).

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Nov 16, 2006 -> 10:11 AM) Boone, lol, don't get me started. I'd be surprised if he wasn't on the opening day roster. He has a nice arm and when he throws strikes he's pretty tough to hit.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 15, 2006 -> 11:11 AM) And I think it will be to the White Sox. The question I have is if he can be our starting CF or LF next year? I'll pass on that. He's ridiculously over-rated.