Chisoxfn

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 09:25 PM) BRAD JOHNSON BABY - UNDEFEATED(as a starter)!!! Oh, and to anybody in this thread for this week - atleast you're not a Bills or Phins fan. Rowand and I were wondering which was worse, getting absolutely destroyed by a good but not great team in San Diego, or getting shutout and losing by 22 to a bad but talented Cleveland team. I think by seasons end people will be calling San Diego a great team. Call it a hunch.

QUOTE(Brian @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 05:57 PM) ESPN has an insider story about Garnett making harsh comments about McHale and could lead to a deal to NY or Detroit before 06! What would it take to get him in Chicago? Tyson and what else? Gordon? I may do that. I'd give up everything but Hinrich and Deng for Garnett. Yes I'd give up Gordon, Tim Thomas (for contractual purposes) and I'd try to hang onto Chandler (but I'd deal him or Sweetney or whoever else). I'd give up the farm to get a star like him. Put him with Hinrich, Duhon, Deng, Noc and whoever else is left and I'd be really happy. Of course I highly doubt the Bulls would match up, but I bet Garnett would like to come to Chicago.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 09:14 PM) Alford's teams always seem to peak in November by beating teams better than they are, so they victory for them tonight should come as no surprise. Alford usually gets off to hot starts before fading at the start of big 10 season (hopefully no Pierre Pierce incident will lead to good things this year). Plus this group really seemed to bond together last year down the stretch and while they didn't play great against Kentucky they played good enough to win. Defensively Iowa looked as good as I've seen from an Iowa team. They forced quite a few turnovers, got a lot of blocked shots, crashed the boards, and really forced Kentucky to hit outside shots (although there were breakdowns caused by Brando or whatever his name is). Offensively Iowa didn't look great. The thing that dissapointed me were some really sloppy turnovers by the veteran Horner. However, they survived despite a rare off night for both Haluska and Horner (two of the better shooters in the big 10) and Brunner played strong. They aren't incredibly deep but Henderson and Thomas looked good and the youngster Alex Thompson actually flashed some signs. Plus they got this new freshman PG who impressed the hell out of me. He is super fast and made some nice passes (stripped KU on the final posession too). Hansen made stupid fouls early and got in foul trouble, which is rough. He is a very good defensive big man but always gets stupid fouls on the perimeter. Still I enjoyed the game and it really was a good game to watch. Both teams played tough and wanted the game. They were diving and fighting for every lose ball. It was almost like a tourney game. Great fun and I'm glad the Hawks pulled it out. Can't wait to see the rematch against Texas (last year they beat Texas in the Hawaii one).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 09:26 PM) 3yrs $11M + $1.5M signing bonus + No-Trade clause + Incentives = Scott Eyre 3yrs $12M + $???M signing bonus + NTC??? + Incentives = Bobby Howry That's atleast $24.5M over the next 3 years to two 32+ year old ex-White Sox middle relievers who are comming off career years. They'd have been better off throwing 3 yr 8 or 9 mill per after one Billy Wagner.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 10:52 PM) Is he a butcher there? IIRC he did play there a decent amount of times when he was with the Cubs. I don't remember him looking too bad, but he had that nasty injury while he was over there as well. I think he can figure it out.

QUOTE(SSH2005 @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 06:34 PM) And the Red Sox will be happy with this deal for the exact opposite reason as the Marlins -- the Red Sox want to win now, not 5 years from now. So if thats the case...the Red Sox and Marlins both get what they want...which would make it a fair trade. The Marlins get a huge contract off there books and get two good to great prospects.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 06:44 PM) Laughable? Compare Rowand's ZR, Rate 2, and Defensive Win Shares to Pierre's -- all are significantly better in Rowand's favor. Significantly. But of course, how can I argue with the ESPN Scouting Report? Wite -- I don't understand your comment about Milton Bradley. I've heard that he's one of the better outfielders (defensively) in baseball. His ZR is similar to Pierre's, and he rated well in Tango's Defensive Scouting Report. Jim -- pesky offense of last year? They were certainly pesky in the playoffs (moreso because of the HR than because of the SB), but in the regular season, they ranked 9th in runs scored. I think the plan should be to attempt to maintain your production from 1B/RF spot(Delgado? Thome? Giles? All three, if healthy -- I'd argue -- will produce better than Konerko will next year), while substantially improving the offense from your DH spot (a healthy Thomas? a healthy Durazo? something else?). I don't expect our offense to be great, at least not next year. There's not enough money to spread around to make it 'great'. But I think it can improve to 5th or 6th in the AL in runs scored, just with a move or two. Ideally, you can resign Konerko and get Thome, but I don't know if that's exactly reasonable, either... Bradley is a talented player but he is not a good defensive outfielder.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 09:22 PM) How many starting pitchers do they have now? Schilling, Clement, Beckett, Arroyo, Miller, Papelbon, Wakefield, Lester... Schilling has shown nothing to make me believe he'll be back. It will be interesting to see how he pitches early this year, but if he doesn't have his velocity and stuff back early in the season his career is over (sadly that playoff heroicy may have ended his career). Arroyo would likely slide to the pen and I think they would still be in the market for another starter. Clement, Beckett, two kids and Wakefield wouldn't exactly be a playoff rotation (considering I'm usually one to expect nothing from young pitchers in there 1st full seasons). However, if any team could get away with it, it would be one with an offense as potent as the Red Sox (especially if they keep Manny; Plus Renteria is far better than he played in 05 with Boston).

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 09:17 PM) On Sportscenter they had a report from Peter Gammons and he stated the following: "So now, after having one of the oldest rotations, Boston can trot out Beckett, Jonathon Papelbon and John Lester for the next 6 years and compete with anyone in October." Am I the only one who thinks this is absolute bulls***? I understand that Papelbon and Lester are huge prospects and the Red Sox have high hopes for them but to say that for the next 6 years these two extremely unproven pitchers are going to dominate as absolute horses***. I understand that Gammons loves the Red Sox and all but god damn can he just show one instance of unbias reporting? Plus everyone knows not all good arms come to fruition and there is no reason to think all of them will pan out. That said Boston made a good deal. They can afford Lowell's contract and I'm of the belief Lowell will rebound next season and put up numbers like he did the previous two years. Beckett is definately a risk, but he hasn't had serious arm problems although blisters still nag and keep you from making the starts (and Ismael Valdes showed how they can pretty much follow you and ruin a career), so who knows if he'll ever get over them. Still the Red Sox gave up two totally unproven prospects for a gold glover and former all star 3rd baseman (arguably in his prime, although he is coming off a bad year) and one of the best arms in the NL (notice I say Arms). Good use of two prospects, imo.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 09:20 PM) I understand that some people on this board (including Jason) love Bill Mueller. I am not one of those people, if we sign him to play everyday at 3B or 1B I will be pissed. If he is signed it tells me that the Sox are not comfortable with Joe's back. However, I don't really see this as a bad signing, if he signs on for the right price. He's a great insurance plan and could spell Crede at 3rd, but more importantly he could spell Iguchi at 2nd. I am semi worried about Iguchi really regressing. I don't know if he just wore out or if pitchers made an adjustment in the 2nd half of the season, but the later it went the worse he seemed to play. Of course Guchi is a smart hitter and he'll be much more comfortable this year (plus he'll have a full off-season of watching film and getting more familiar with the league) to the point that he may explode next year (.300/20/80). I don't mind having the depth of Mueller. Mueller is a solid defensive 3rd baseman who is a good slap hitter (and would make a very good 2 hole hitter if Crede or Guchi went down or struggled). Plus its a solid insurance plan if Konerko went down or if the Sox weren't able to find a DH (although I would cringe at the thought of Mueller starting at 1st, unless the Sox found some serious power for DH). Still I don't see him signing for 2 mill (which is about the most I could see the Sox paying a utility guy). Unless of course he just really wants to come to the Sox and feels he'd be a good contributor (or if there isn't the type of market I think there will be for him). He's a smart baseball player, nothing great, but he's smart and would be an asset off the bench, imo. As an everyday player I wouldn't have a problem, if it weren't for the fact that Crede really seems to have figured things out (or at least I think you could make a case for that, which means you could expect a breakout .280 25-30 80-90 year from him given the right circumstances) and quite frankly when your built on pitching you want to field the best defensive lineup you can (which is one of the reasons for the most part I'm utterly against dealing Rowand). I'd rather find a way to resign Paulie and land our DH without dealing Aaron.

I think the Sox would like to get Anderson 300-400 Ab's this year if they can. That way he'll be less of a rookie in 07, which means the Sox would be more comfortable having two younger players developing in the outfield (in fact they could have Anderson as a full time starter in 07, with Young now getting worked into the lineup slowly in 07 as a 4th outfielder). I still think its a question-mark that far in advance cause either could be dealt and personally I think this will be Pods final season on the southside (but thats just a matter of opinion). Regardless, Young has a great work ethic and seems to be a pretty good learner. He has been working hard the past couple years when it comes to laying off the breaking ball and has been getting better at it each and every year. I'd be more worried about him if he didn't have a good eye, but he seems to have that going for him (he was drawing more and more walks as the season went on). He'll never not be a strikeout hitter, but if he can adjust enough to breaking pitches he'll be able to do great things at the major league level. Defensively he's the best CF the Sox have too. Anderson would probably shift to RF, although Young could technically be one hell of a Lfer, although he doesn't have the arm for RF. His arm is a lot better than most, but it definately wouldn't be a plus RF arm, it would be a plus LF arm and a good CFer arm. The key will be how the rest of the team is. If the rest of the team is good enough and they aren't developing any other players (uribe and Crede should be at that stage guys ready to take the next step) which means Anderson and Young could replace them in the develop as you go roll so you could afford to live with the rookie mistakes, especially since both have the talent to make big plays. This develop one or two rookies at a time philosphy is one that has been used by the Braves for a long time and its really worked well. I hope the Sox will be able to do it (it keeps pressure off rookies while allowing one or two a year to develop which means your team stays young and can be sucessful for a long period of time).

I'm not concerned. I sold my ps2 this week on ebay and my Xbox will be kept till January or February. Once the new baseball game from EA comes out I'll be picking up a 360 and going with that.

QUOTE(SoxFan1 @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 04:41 PM) Go walk into a cornfield or something. Your just jealous because the Iowa......uuum, wait, what pro football team does Iowa have? Oh yes, they have the Iowa Barnstormers in the Arena League.... He has interests, we have ours. I hate watching a lot of good teams just because I have little interest in them. I'd rather watch the Bears play some loser (even if the Bears are a loser too) than watch two great teams play usually.

It should be a good game though.

QUOTE(Buehrle>Wood @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 03:48 PM) I would may be give out some letter grades. You know, for us too lazy to actually read. I can't really do grades, its such a short season and its so hard to tell based on a players stats. Often times a player is simply in the fall league to work on one aspect of his game and because of that his overall numbers suffer. I just don't think it would be fair. For example Tracey was working on developing another pitch and therefor was working on his secondary pitches and the new pitch a lot more, which is why his numbers were a lot worse than usual. I wish I knew what all of them were working on and I'll try to ask around to find out cause I think that would be really informal.

2005 AFL Review: The Sox Bats By Jason Gage November 21, 2005 FutureSox.com The most prestigious off-season prospect league, the Arizona Fall League, has come to an end. Every major league team is entitled to send 6 prospects to the league. The White Sox representatives were Pedro Lopez (SS/2B; Replaced Robert Valido mid-way through), Josh Fields (3B), Chris Young (OF), Sean Tracey (RHP), Corwin Malone (LHP), and Paulino Reynoso (LHP)...MORE Tomorrow the pitchers portion of the writeup will be up. Please leave feedback. Its the first piece in a while and there was definately some rust (in terms of the grammar and writing, so I apologize).

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 02:33 PM) Interesting you mentioned schools, I agree that is a key concept. I believe financing schools is the single biggest problem in our education system. Higher property values assure better schools in the neighborhoods that have the resources to send their kids to private schools and hurt the poorer community and schools that need public education the most. Well if its any consolation, the schools here year in year out demand more money from the taxpayers and everyyear it gets voted down with ease. None of them want to give the schools here any more funding. To be honest, I don't blame them, I think in a lot of instances people think throwing money at the school systems solves things, but quite frankly I think its how you spend the money and I think a lot of school systems could use some help with that.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 02:51 PM) Hahahahaa... He is so kind to defer all the uncomfortable stuff to me. It's OK though.. we all (the girls - sisters, daughters, female cousins, etc.. ) get along very well. I'm just not sure because something like this has never happened.. I'm wondering if it was just a mistake.. but it's come up several times (like who's bringing what) and she never asked about my folks.. Maybe just ask innocently whether your folks should bring anything. I wouldn't worry too much about it, but it does sound odd that they wouldn't just invite them.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 02:21 PM) Which confirms my original assumption that all those cities would be largely GOP, with a well financed city budget for police patrols, most homes having security systems, fences, gates, perhaps some private gated communities. Last I looked the GOP held an adge with higher income families. How about spinning this off the politcs? What factors should be present to make a community safe? Does the local government play a role? Wealth of the city? I think the local government plays a huge role. The police forces are all very large in these areas and at the same time the school systems are very strong in this cities. I think all of this is because the community in itself is involved. And despite the fact I don't want to say this, but money is definately a reason why. Simply put more wealthy families (i'm not talking super upper class, but upper-middle class) typically are involved and demand quality schools. With quality schools on the most part you have students that stay in school and are educated. They also don't have near as many negative influences, so basically put both the young and old are far more responsible (of course drug abuse I think is high in upper middle class schools and especially in upper class schools). I'm sure I'm generalizing though and it definately depends on the areas you live in because in a lot of areas you don't have to be in a wealthy area for this to happen. Far put, if you live in an area where values are high and families are tight you can also have this exists, imo. In general I think a lot of this comes down to families and the values they have and teach.

QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 11:15 AM) How far extended is acceptable (or un.. ) when inviting people over for the holiday's...?? As far as I'm concerned....the more relatives the worse the event That just holds true when it comes to my moms side of the family though I don't think there is ever anything wrong with inviting family or friends(even if they are very distant). Worse they can do is say no, and I think they always feel welcome for the invite.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 02:15 PM) Good point about state vs. local. One would have to look at mayoral races. But I ask again, what discussion is there that wouldn't be considered political? The police chief is generally picked by the mayor, sheriffs are elected officials. We look to our government for crime prevention and we know the government is political. Well than, lets not forget that a local election does not have parties involved. But since I'm from the area where two of those cities are listed (regardless of whether they supported or not) I can tell you that by and large they are republican cities located in a heavily republican county.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 06:59 AM) Then why are some cities safer than others? I always thought better economics = safer city better economics = GOP voting I was surprised to see the list didn't reflect that. Tex; Mission Viejo, Lake Forest...bot hare part of South Orange County, which is as republican of a county as there is as well as pretty much as safe and wealthy of a county as there is. Irvine, Newport, Mission Viejo, Laguna, Rancho Santa Margarita...I could list off tons of cities all heavy republican cities in the area that have been previously ranked as safest cities. I know Irvine has won the award a few times. I hate seeing politics shoved into this but if someone is gonna slam the party I back than I better at least throw out some facts and state this is a BS concept. And no, I'm not saying that republican cities are safer...all I'm saying is this is pure hogwash.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 06:36 AM) By state, Kerry won 8 of the 10. I guess when you feel safe, you can vote Democrat. I guarantee you he didn't win Mission Viejo and I doubt he won Lake Forest so I don't know how he did in the other cities. Both are very safe areas, although I must say I was surprised to see Lake Forest in there. There are other areas in South Orange County that I think of as safer and better, but Lake Forest is pretty small.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Nov 21, 2005 -> 01:47 PM) ^^^ Majerus and Steve Lavin are great analysts. Ya, I'm very surprised that Lavin hasn't gotten another coaching job. He's a great analyst, but he was also a very strong recruiter and a solid coach. UCLA has a cures that if you can't win it all after a few years your going to be fired. Despite that Lavin did do a pretty good job. They made like 5 or 6 sweet sixteen and the only year they didn't he was fired.

Michigan State looks freaking horrible. They are winning but Chaminade is not a good team, just like Hawaii is not a good team.