Chisoxfn

We really have zero in-house candidates, imo.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:42 PM) Ok, let's just clear up this confusion I'm having. You're referring to Rick Majerus? Former Utah and almost-former USC coach Rick Majerus? Damn good analyst? He epitomizes ESPN's and other national sporting-news organizations failed attempts to have ex-athletes and ex-coaches analyze sports for a living. What will it take for them to stop force-feeding us the Rick Majerus' and Bill Maas' of the world? It's really sad and makes some of these broadcasts nearly impossible to enjoy. You can have Majerus. You can have Maas. You can have Steve Phillips. Successful basketball coach? Yes. Successful midwesterner(Milwaukee)? Yup. Great guy, great all-around guy? Sure, I've hear similar things. Keep him the f away from a microphone. He might know quite a bit about the game of basketball, but, when you can't articulate yourself out of a paper-bag, you do not deserve to be "enlightening" the American sports drones on national broadcasts. Him and Lavin are great. They almost always do Hawkeyes games and both of them do a great job diagnosing the X's and O's and point out things 99% of analysts wouldn't have a clue about. Now Majerus isn't the best with words, but he has something almost all analysts don't have and thats basketball intelligence. I'll take him and Lavin doing a game over Dickie V. any day of the week. Of course I think Lavin is the best in the biz when it comes to college basketball announcing.

Sharp Cheddar on a sandwich Muenster All those fancy kinds Bleu Cheese Bri

I should delete this thread, but its too funny.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 03:30 PM) DanI Rite Good old Danny boy

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:14 PM) See, this is why people like Chad Johnson and it's the kind of thing that Terrell Owens doesn't get. They both do celebrations but totally different kinds of celebrations. The best way to describe the two is with a quote from Super Troopers . . . -[Chad Johnson's] shenanigans are cheeky and fun! -Yeah, and [Terrell Owens'] shenanigans are cruel and tragic. -Which... makes them not really shenanigans at all. -Evil shenanigans! So many great lines in that movie. - I'm gonna pistol whip the next guy that says shenanigans - Hey Farve, whats that restaurant you like with all the quirky stuff (something like that) - You mean Shenanigans - The guys hold out the pistol

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 07:18 PM) Waiiiiiting is the hardest part. The Iowa State - USF game doesn't start til around 11:30 tonight. If USF stands for University San Francisco you guys should win. For god sakes Fullerton beat them up real bad in the NIT this past year.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 05:12 PM) Rick Majerus is an absolute ass-wad. Waiting for this evening's Braggin Rights game, I had to sit through this gem... In reference to UConn's Rudy Gay: "I'm not a big Gay guy." He felt he was still too raw of a player and instead of saying he wasn't as high on him as the rest of the nation, or, he feels he needs to refine his game, he came at us with, I'm not a big Gay guy." How Lavin didn't crack up is beyond me. You might not be a big, Gay guy, but you're surely a big, fat guy. If this is Majerus' attempt at physical and mental fitness, I think he needs to "refine his game." Majerus is awesome. Great person, great coach, pretty damn good analyst.

Honestly the odds of Finley getting back to form are probably greater than the odds of Alfonzo ever finding the skills he once had in New York. Finley back in a new league working his ass off could figure things out. Considering salaries are a wash I like this deal a lot more from the Giants perspective. However, Alfonzo can help out at 2nd and 3rd for the Angels and provide depth if McPherson has any more injuries. I'm guessing this move will mean Erstad is headed to CF with Kochman moving to DH (which is something I like). That part of this deal (if Erstad stays healthy) definately helps the Angels.

I'll pass on Bradford. Specialty right handed relievers are worthless, imo (Ie guys that can only pitch to righties).

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:56 PM) Pretty much sums it up. The concept is quite simple. Safeties, free and strong, need to stop the pass first. That is their primary job. Williams fails to do so. Brown does not. Yes, Williams is very good against the run but his primary job is to stop the pass. Once more, he does not do so. Brown is good at both, therefore, Brown is the better safety. Neither is GREAT. No no no. Tmar is right, the primary job of a strong safety is stopping the run. However I'd rate it as a 60/40 in a sense. (for a strong safety).

QUOTE(Tmar28 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:39 PM) i edited my last post with the word Strong in front of safety. if you are not good against the run, you are not a good strong safety. i seriously hope you can agree with this ok here. we got two strong safeties. player A is better against run than player B. who would you take? player A now player B is better against pass than player A. who would you take in this case? player B again, for strong safety, pass is not as important as run. its all specialization. pass rushing DE's and OLB's. its the same for FS and SS. No, I agree with this. If you play strong safety you have to be good against the run. I've never said Roy Williams can't play the run, but he's a terrible coverage safety and despite what you say, it is still important to have quality coverage skills. I'm not saying he needs to be good at man coverage, but he has to stay in his zone and be able to read the QB and make quality adjustments. Most importantly he can't get overly agressive and get burned because he's the last man to beat. However a strong safety that can play man coverage from time to time is a total asset to your team, especially when they can also play the run. Therefor, Roy Williams is not a great strong safety. Great players do everything they are asked of (for there position) well and Roy Williams doesn't do that. His position is involved in pass coverage and he gets a D in that category.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:36 PM) wow, who would think that Mark would get more than himself?? That should say Mark would get a little more than Jon

QUOTE(3E8 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:25 PM) What am I not seeing in Greg Miller? His stats look pretty impressive but he's got 4 starts in AA and has only thrown 35 innings since '03. He seems a little risky to be a main piece in a Garland deal. Prior to his injury Miller was one of the bright spots in the Dodgers system. He has high upside and good stuff. I don't know much about how serious his injury was (I forget what it was) but assuming his stuff is back and he's healthy he's a guy whose value is at a low but has major upside.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:12 PM) Let me ask...IF garland is worth $9mill per, what's Buehrle worth? $15mill? $17mill? Technically speaking, on the open market I think Buehrle would get a little more than Garland. I'd reckon it would be somewhere around 13 mill per year (now he could take a discount with certain teams but if he were to go to the highest bidder, that would be the case). Garland isn't worth much less than Buehrle, imo. Not in these market conditions. On a sidenote, Gene, I like your ideas about Buehrle.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 02:05 PM) IF my aunt Dorothy had balls, she'd be my uncle! Seriously, if JG got hurt, he'd have to live on $16 million for the rest of his life...not too shabby. It may not be shabby, but he's going to get about 50 million more than that long term and he'd be an idiot to sign a 2yr 16 mill deal.

QUOTE(Steve Bartman's my idol @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 01:51 PM) If I was JG, I'd ask for a 2 year $16 million contract...when that ends he's only 28, THEN...MONSTER DOLLARS!!! Umm...he's gonna get 7 mill or so (maybe even 8) in arbitration. Why the hell would he do that. The guy could on the open market get himself a 5 to 6 yr deal worth a minimum of 11 mill per year and I'd think it could get as high as 13-13.5 mill a year.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:29 PM) I agree but the reason they let Bengie Molina go is probably because of Jeff Mathis. But there was zero reason not to offer him arb. Worse he does is decline it, but you end up getting draft picks. If he does accept it gives you 1 yr which is the perfect stop gap to mathis. Mathis is not ready this year.

Haha. I just got my 1st one. Still have to watch it. My best friend was shocked I hadn't bought it. Can't wait to finally watch it.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:24 PM) Once again, I agree. I tell you, if it wasn;t for the off-field issues, Sean Taylor might very well be the best safety the league has seen since Ronnie Lott. He is great in coverage and good against the run. Polamalu is a lesser version of Mike Brown IMO. About as good against the run but like you said, not great in coverage. Lynch was always the top of the Safety crop in the NFC until he left for the AFC and the Bronco's. Lassiter was great in his days in Arizona and I agree, Rodney Harrison is probably the best in the game now. IMO, Harrison, Reed, Taylor, Brown, and Lynch are top 5 in thw NFL. But hey, a Pro-Bowler is a Pro-Bowler. In 2-3 years, Brown/Harris will be the best safety tandem in the NFL. I can't say that. Harris has played well as a rookie, but he has a long ways to go and who knows how Brown will be 2-3 years from now. He's long talked about hanging it up at a younger age so he doesn't have to deal with all the long term effects of playing football. I do think Mike Brown will one day be a coach for the Bears (in some way shape or form).

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:24 PM) That would make a lot of sense. They are probably going to lose Bengie Molina and they traded away their backup stud catcher in Josh Paul. They could go with a catching tandem of Jose Molina and Olivo and let Jeff Mathis spend another season at AAA, although one could argue that he is ready now. The Angels will suck next year. But Olivo >>> Molina. Jose Molina is a focking BUM.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:18 PM) I like where you're going with this. As posted on page one, I'm sticking to my guns in asking for Billingsley, either Broxton or Edwin Jackson and another mid-level prospect. I think it's very fair to look at what Freddy Garcia netted at the trade deadline two years ago and think Garland can get the same. You want: a) an MLB-ready ballplayer--in our case, it would be Broxton answering a big need in the bullpen v. Seattle's need for Miguel Olivo b ) an upper-tier prospect--in our case, it would be Billingsley v. Seattle's Jeremy Reed c) another prospect--in our case, Edwin Jackson, or the like v. Mike Morse I really hope that's the direction Kenny wants to go when trading Garland. Anything less, and he's undervalued his own player once again. Edwin Jackson can't be the main part of any deal with the Dodgers. He is not the highly touted prospect he once was. He still has the arm, but arm troubles and struggles at the major league level have ruined that hype. Consider him Juan Cruz when the Cubs finally gave up on him (ie, still had the great arm but had struggled too much at the major league level to be considered the type of prospect he once was). However, Jackson is still just 21 (plenty of time left). If you get Billingsley, be prepared for maybe at best a Billingsley/Jackson package (which gives you two killer arms, one has issues though). I think thats the most the Dodgers would give up, but I really can't see Bill going unless they get a 72 Hr window and sign him long term. If thats the case, I go back to getting at minimum Bill and Broxton together. Unless of course the Sox prefer to get themselves a bat (ie Guzman or LaRoche) plus a pitcher like Broxton. Still most fair deal: Elbert, Broxton, Jackson

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:17 PM) I agree. But you cant deny that the NFC safety position is slim pickings. Brown will always be rememberd for the 2 greatest plays of the 2001 season in back-to-back weeks against SF and Claveland. I will NEVER forget that. But for this season, I will definitely remember his shot on Marcus Pollard. WOW! There aren't many great safeties as is, but Browns definately amongst the best in the biz (AFC or NFC). Hell the best in the AFC isn't even playing this year (I happen to think Rodney Harrison is as good as it gets). At the same time Polamalu is a better version of Roy Williams. Pol plays the run tremendous but does have lapses in coverage. At the same time he makes some big plays in coverage and overall is a good Safety. I don't follow the Skins enough to tell you about Sean Taylor. I just know he's got a crazy skill set and has a ton of off field issues. I have no idea how healthy he was this year or if he even came close to living up to his hype. Than there is Ed Reed whose solid but on a lousy Bmore team. Lynch I'm guessing is gonna be in the probowl. He wasn't what he once was, but he's still solid. Your not going to name many safeties in this league that are better than a healthy Mike Brown, imo.

QUOTE(CanOfCorn @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:16 PM) It was Liberty University...founded by Jerry Falwell. Liberty U. I guess his knee didn't have God on his side on Sunday. I despise the pack, but I hope Gado can come back and be solid (as long as he sucks against the Bears and we keep winning).

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Dec 21, 2005 -> 12:09 PM) I think that is a damn good deal and I wouldnt blink an eye. It would stock our system again, and allow us to deal or develop. I like it. Plus if you look at it from the Dodgers perspective, they keep Billingsley/Guzman/Laroche so I think they'd be happy. I must admit, if I could get Billingsley over Elbert in that deal I would (but I think the only way you do that is if the Dodgers are desperate and you have another suitor offering up a good amount).