CWSGuy406

QUOTE(Gage Loves Me @ Jan 13, 2007 -> 03:34 AM) Yeaaaaaaaa riiiiiiiiiiiight If you gave us Seabrook, I'd do it in a hearbeat. We're not gonna give you our 25 goal scorer for your deadwood. Yeah, you're going to learn real quick about sarcasm -- most people use green when they're sarcastic, but I'm too lazy to. I know that deal would never happen. BTW -- don't hate on the Hawks. We Hawk fans (or the knowledgable ones) pretty much knew going into the season that we probably weren't going to make the playoffs, and that if things went fairly well, we'd be fighting for the 8th spot in the West. I know we haven't been good for a long time, but this year was our first true rebuilding year. Next year our past three first-round picks should all be with the club full time. So along with Havlat and Ruutu and Seabrook and Keith (and some others tossed in here and there), we're cautiously optimistic.

QUOTE(Gage Loves Me @ Jan 13, 2007 -> 02:42 AM) Ummmm hi. I'm new here, and since there is nowhere to introduce myself, I'm not gonna introduce myself. I'm here to take over this thread. Let's go Rangers. Give us Prucha. For Cullimore. And Aucoin. That is all.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 12, 2007 -> 01:17 AM) What you are talking about when you refer to throwing hard/far, or hitting, or getting jumps on fly balls... those are individual SKILLS. Owens obviously lacks in some of those skills. But, if you look at his history even before the minors, with a very small amount of experience, he has already moved up very fast. This despite being younger and less experienced than his peers. That, to me, indicates some combination of athleticism and hard work. Now, the athleticism will only carry him so far - he needs to hone specific skills (built on athletic talent) to compete at the MLB level. Will he, or can he? Hard to say. He hasn't been younger than his peers. In 'prospect' terms, he's been older than his peers. Before the Sox even break for Spring Training in 2007, Owens will already be 26 years old. A 26 year old who hasn't even mastered AAA yet is in no way a prospect. You also have to look at ceilings. If EVERYTHING broke right for Owens, what type of player do you think he could be? He has absolutely no power (career .368 minor league SLG%), and I doubt he's ever going to gain any power. He can't play CF on a daily basis, so he's designated to a corner OF spot -- the lack of power is now magnified. If everything broke right, I'm thinking he could be a Scott Podsednik (not counting 2003, as Owens will never touch a .400 slugging percentage in any significant amount of ABs) type player, ie .290/.350/.350. If that's your ceiling, you aren't much of a prospect. More likely, you're probably looking at an okay fourth OFer, but not somebody you want EVER starting for you. It's funny... I was the one who adopted Jerry Owens in the AAP. Heh...

QUOTE(ptatc @ Jan 11, 2007 -> 11:18 PM) Which are illegal. Are they illegal outside of MLB? Honest question. They aren't as 'harmful' as steroids, are they? I've always thought of amphetamines as (more or less) energy type things that, prior to last season, most players took.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 11, 2007 -> 05:14 PM) Now everyone knows for sure about Bonds... ...that he took amphetamines. Which, IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong), is like taking a suped-up Red Bull. QUOTE(WCSox @ Jan 11, 2007 -> 07:14 PM) Barry's treatment of his teammates and members of the media is well-documented. Do a Google search if you don't already know. Who had Bonds fought with in his career, players wise? I know about the Jeff Kent incident -- which, BTW, was likely as much Kent's fault as Bonds' -- were there any other well-documented 'fights'? I know when AJ was asked about it once, he said he didn't have much of a problem with Barry... And, from what I've seen of the San Fran media, they ask the same questions day after day after day, despite the fact that they know the answer they're going to get. They're looking for their question to be the spark that sets him off so they have a nice little column the next day (or week). I'm not trying to paint him as an angel, but he's far from the only "asshole" in the sports community.

QUOTE(Dan @ Jan 11, 2007 -> 10:39 PM) id be willing to bet that I have PLAYED hockey longer than you have been watching it. What does having played the game have to do with ANYTHING? If you like a shootout to decide a playoff type hockey game, I don't really see how you are a true fan, simple as that. Making an awesome game into a skills competition is not a way to end a meaningful game. --------------- Also, despite the loss, the Hawks played pretty well last night. They had some good opportunities on Miller who pretty much stood on his head. Khabi let in a pretty (IMO) soft goal on Afinigenov, but otherwise had a strong night. The guys put up a pretty good effort against one of the better teams in hockey. And Byfuglian needs to be up here full time. He made some mistakes last nite, but I think he's ready to take a 5th/6th defenseman role. f***ing Cullimore and Aucoin...

You know, I'd really like to be interested in soccer, but the MLS games that I have watched just don't do it for me. I know that they have a Fox Sports channel that you can order as a package, but I really wish someone (other than ESPN Deportes) picked up some of the European league soccer games. I'd love to catch a Madrid/Barcelona or Chelsea/Arsenal game, but they're rarely on. Also, boo Fifa Soccer 2007 for 360 for only carrying six leagues.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 09:55 PM) At no time when I'm watching him do I feel "wow, this is the best player in college basketball". I know he's a virtual lock to be a first-team All-American, but he needs more games like he did vs Pitt and Marquette before I'll feel like he deserves it over Durant. His FT shooting is still poor, and you'd like to see him get more rebounds per game than he does. I guess it goes back to baseball's MVP debate -- ie, how is it judged? Do you look at it by, say, taking him off the team and asking where that team would be? Or just best overall numbers? Because, while I'm not as knowledgable of non-Marquette college basketball, it'd be tough for someone to make a bigger case than Tucker in the "if you took him off the team, where would that team be?" argument. Rebounding-wise, I don't have numbers in front of me but he certainly doesn't strike me as a poor rebounder. He's quite physical and has a strong frame. If his rebounds per game are low, I'd like to see that number at the end of the season, as I would guess that the low number would be more luck than anything. Free throws are obviously a flaw of his that needs to be corrected. I also noticed that you have Dominic James on your top list. Something is wrong with him this year and I don't know what the hell it is, but it needs to change. Whereas last year he was quick and nobody could guard him one-on-one, this year he seems content with shooting the three despite the fact that he sucks from there. He seems like a less intense player this year, and if he doesn't pick it up ASAP, Marquette is looking at missing the tourney, which would be quite a hit to the program. BTW -- Marquette at UConn tonight. We're 0-2 so far in the Big East, and looking at 0-3 -- UConn is basically a more athletic version of Marquette with good big men (or, at least physical and athletic freaks), something MU doesn't have. Things ain't lookin' so good for the other team in Wisconsin...

QUOTE(fathom @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 07:22 PM) If you take Hansbrough off of UNC, they're still a top 10 team. However, if you take Davis and Boggan off of their team, those teams don't even make the tournament. And if you take Tucker off of Wisconsin, where are they? They probably don't beat Marquette or Pittsburg, among other games... It would be one thing if Tucker was a ball-hog with typical AI type numbers, ie 20 PPG but shooting 8-for-25 from the field. But he's not. He has an awesome mid-range game and is extremely tough to guard, especially when Bo Ryan posts him up. Calling him overrated is quite silly, IMO.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 10, 2007 -> 08:26 AM) I like the arms that we have, that simple. It's hard to find consistant middle relievers from year to year, so if you just look by previous years, it's not always going to be the best way to determine future results. All of the guys that are either in the pen or have a shot to make it, have terrific arms. The bullpen is also pretty deep. Whereas last year our 'depth' consisted of Augustin Montero and Sean Tracey, this year if someone struggles we'll have some solid arms down there. It looks like Masset and Sisco will take the last two spots, so the next two bullpen guys will be Logan and Perez. Perez pwned every level he was at last year, and Logan is a pretty quality 7th/8th option to have, especially considering how young he is. Being 'proven' doesn't mean s***.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 9, 2007 -> 10:49 PM) You're missing the point. I am not saying that BSU is better than Florida or OSU. They most likely are not. But we don't know, do we? If you go 13-0 in 1-A play, and don't just play a cream puff schedule (and by ANY definition, 6 bowl teams is not cream puff), you deserve a chance. I would have said the same for Rutgers if they had finished off their almost improbably season. I think people more or less agree with you, but Boise -- if they really believe that they could 'compete' with the big teams -- should try (maybe they did?) to schedule at least one tough OOC game. Although, I don't know how far in advance these schedules are made...

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Jan 7, 2007 -> 06:38 PM) His stuff does... Garland has what could be termed a "power curveball"? Since when...?

Marquette lost to 'Cuse, and we're now 0-2 in the BE with a loss looming Wednesday at UConn. We suck at playing basketball. -I'm not at all impressed by Tom Crean's in-game coaching abilities. I'm not even sure what the gameplan was tonight against the Orange's 2-3 zone. For the first five minutes, we tried pushing the ball up the floor as well as passing the ball into the middle and short-corner. And by golly, it worked! But for the next, oh say, 35 minutes of basketball. it was awful. They'd dribble the ball at half-court till about 10-15 seconds left on the shotclock, and then they'd pass the ball around the perimiter slowly. No set offensive attack, no gameplan. -Dominic James would not be drafted if the NBA held its lottery today. He can't shoot. I think he made about one three tonight (if that -- he continues to shoot STUPID threes despite the fact that he's awful from the line). Oh, and he's a PG who can't shoot free throws. He went to the line after getting fouled while taking a three, and guess how many he made? ZERO. And he didn't even come close on one of them. At this point, I almost want our backup, David Cubillan, playing as the starter. He hits open threes, is always intense on the floor, and doesn't make as many stupid decisions as James. -Oh, and we can't rebound for s***, either. This is going to be one looooooooong year... My thoughts summed up perfectly by one of the writers at Cracked Sidewalks: http://marquettebasketball.blogspot.com/

If Kenny wants to see defense arguably worse than Mackowiak's in CF last year, than Bernie would be a great pickup.

Hmm... Byfuglian and Colin Fraser were also called up. A trade has to be coming, right? That's now eight defensemen on the roster, and you can't move Wis to the wing, seeing that he's part of the Hawks' best pairing. Hopefully by the end of the night, one of Cullimore/Aucoin/Vandermeer aren't on the Hawks roster.

Yesssss! That'll work, Greasy!

Greg Paulus got pwned nasty style in that game. I hope some photographer got a good picture of that...

QUOTE(Felix @ Jan 6, 2007 -> 05:07 AM) Minnesota > Wisconsin tomorrow. Book it. Hah. Who's going to guard Tucker? No offense, but I'd say there's very few players in the country who can guard that guy. And if you don't find someone who can D him up, you're hoping on him having an off-day. QUOTE(danman31 @ Jan 5, 2007 -> 10:40 AM) I feel like I'm watching a Chicago Public League team when I see Marquette. I'm still making a decision on whether or not I'm a fan of Crean's in-game coaching abilities, but so far, the offense he's running doesn't seem to fit the team he has. This is a team that should be trying to 'out-athletic' just about every team it goes against; high tempo offense, push the ball down the floor, pressure defense. They should be allowing the 'Big 3' of James, McNeal, and Matthews to create their own shots, ie spread the floor and look to isolate the one who has the best matchup. Instead they're shooting threes and dribbling around the perimeter. I'm disgusted right now, and you could see this coming from a ways back. Ever since the Duke game, things haven't been the same. We finished out the OOC schedule beating teams by 15-20 despite the fact that those teams, for the most part, suck, and shouldn't have been within sniffings distance of MU. Things need to change, ASAP, or we'll be a bubble team come March.

To beat a dead horse... Aucoin f***ing sucks. Cullimore f***ing sucks. Please Dale, trade these guys for ANYTHING. Eat their contracts. I can't watch 'em anymore. Aucoin played awful tonight. Multiple giveaways, guys just skating right around him. He's terrible. Barker and Byfuglian need to be up here ASAP. God damn those two have to be the slowest defensive pairing in hockey.

We are! the-suck-at-shooting! 4-of-21 tonight from beyond the ark, and "lottery pick" Dominic James 1-of-8. Keep shooting, boys... maybe they'll fall in the NIT.

Ugh. It's a shame LSU couldn't pull out that early game at Auburn. I'm sure I'm not the only one with the opinion that they're the most *talented* team in the country, and if they're 'on' (which they apparently weren't for the two losses at Florida and Auburn), they're the best matchup for OSU. I hate to discredit Florida so much; afterall, they did beat LSU when they faced off...

QUOTE(Dan @ Jan 3, 2007 -> 11:21 PM) 3 shootouts is a great way to end a game. I hope you're kidding. I hope to God you're kidding.

Nice job Fox. Way to cut away from the game WHILE THE PLAY was going on. You know, because we have to see every single band member and every single fan with a painted face in the stands. Oh, and Terry Bradshaw highlights, too.

QUOTE(SoxHawk1980 @ Jan 4, 2007 -> 02:51 AM) I'm not sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that because KW was right on Jenks then he must be right on Masset? That doesn't make any sense. No, my unstated point was more along the lines that it isn't quite fair to judge Masset only on his minor league track record because the majority of his innings in the minors were as a starter. I made the Jenks comparison in that both were bad as starters, but still had what could be called great stuff. I'm saying this; if Jenks were acquired before the 2005 season, you really wouldn't think you'd have anything by looking at his minor league stats. I'm just saying it's unfair to judge Masset on his minor league stats because, as I said, anywhere from 65-80% of his innings came as a starter.

How long will Russell last in the draft? Top 15? He's quite studly...