CWSGuy406

QUOTE(chi-guy2 @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 04:00 AM) what, i just wish they would do it before the game, the whole i love the country thing is great and remembering 9/11, just it makes more sense before the game i know repetitive I thought it couldn't get any worse. This takes the cake.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 03:57 AM) He's not really raw, he's just excessively wild, he's rough mentally and has shaky past. He's better than Walker. And yeah, he's gotta improve that control, but he's got some sick stuff (as you know) and some sick K numbers (as you also know). I'm not gonna b**** about it, but Baj deserves a shot over Jenks. I hope he's taking this OK, because he's done everything he can do to make it to the majors. It's BS that he wasn't called up in the first place.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 03:42 AM) WTF does Baj have to do to get a spot over Walker? BTW - Keith Foulke continues to suck hard tonight. Stealing a line from Cerb, I thought I'd heard that Baj kills innocent children.

35 walks in about 46 innings. One of the best eye's in the game. If I'm a betting man, I'll say that Thomas walks here. Oh, and Walker sucks.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:52 AM) I don't consider Cotts, but I'll give you Garland. Still, that's not a lot of guys in the last few years that we've developed. Why not count Cotts? He spent a full season at Birmingham, which was over a third of his whole minor league career. Whatever, it's not that important. Compare that to a team like the Cubs -- who have just one position player starter who they developed (Patterson), one platoon/backup (DuBois), the "Big Three" (Wood/Prior/Zambrano), and then a bunch of reliever types, none who really seem outstanding, but a bunch of average guys (Mitre/Ohman/Wuertz et al). Obviously, Wood/Prior/Zambrano were good picks, but two of the three were taken in the top five (Wood and Prior), and the other was a ammy FA signing, so there's 29 other teams shaking their heads. We haven't had the chance to draft a Prior or a Wood...

Fathom, I think what we have on our roster is about average: -Rowand -Thomas -Crede -Buehrle -Garland (Not drafted by the Sox, but we pretty much developed him) -Cotts (Ditto with Buehrle).

I was thinking the exact same thing. I believe he had the best rated breaking 'stuff' for a high school per BA in 2004...

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:41 AM) Those guys with 91 mph have a lot lower ceiling than the guys with the overall great stuff. It's up to the minor league developers to get the best out of the player's talent. Please don't tell me that you think our minor league people do a good job at developing players? No, I'm not saying that at all. I haven't liked a lot of their decisions, but I don't feel "qualified" (for lack of a better word) enough to criticize. But that doesn't mean I like all of their picks -- i.e., last year, going with the more athletic, toolsy catcher in Donny Lucy over the less toolsy, more numbers guy in Kurt (I think that's his name) Suzuki. Or, going with a guy like Brooks in the third round, considering his numbers weren't all that spectacular throughout college. Or, as you mentioned, Ring over Blanton. Don't take it like I'm in agreement with them, 'cause while I don't think this team is bad at developing talent, I think they could do a lot better job.

QUOTE(Mr. Showtime @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:40 AM) Yep, need to make a deal. Just don't be b****ing when it costs a lot. These same people were saying the same things about Garland two years ago. Now they're all, "I was on his bandwagon the whole way."

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:37 AM) IMHO that's not b****ing just to b****, but that's calling someone out on the truth. I am one who hates "b****ing just to b****" but clearly the White Sox have taken the control over stuff approach with the pitching draft picks. I'll say it again, it seems like they're trying to find another Buehrle and not trying to find anyone with just nasty stuff that they have to develop. I really don't think that's the case at all... Jim, wouldn't you say so? Of course, if there's a guy who can throw 99 but can't locate it, and there's a guy who can throw 91-93 who can locate it, they'll go with the latter. But I don't see much of a problem with that. Again, they went with a lot of 'stuff' guys last year -- Whistler and Gonzalez come to mind immediately.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:36 AM) Keep believing what you want in terms of my motives. I have some very quality sources that add to my baseball insight, and I don't jump on and off bandwagons like many people on this board. As of now, McCarthy is a bust. Honel wasn't considered someone with great stuff when we drafted him. A guy with great stuff, for example, is someone like Verlander. Where was Verlander picked? 2nd overall? Guys with great stuff aren't always available at the 15th overall pick. And if they are, there's other problems -- like control.

QUOTE(JimH @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:30 AM) Keith ... I have seen Honel pitch a bunch in spring training. I think there's a problem between the ears ... whether it's a lack of confidence or not trusting himself or whatever it is, he has a long long way to go. You are right, the knuckle curve is a pretty good pitch but he also has trouble locating it. And I will say this about his fastball, it is nothing spectacular. If I ever saw him throw 91 I do not remember it. He is a White Sox organizational player so I will root for him, but he's got some big hurdles to overcome. I realize his fastball was just average, but all I heard was rave reviews on his knucklecurve. And I'd also heard about the mentality problems, sort of a cockiness, overconfidence? I'm just saying, there's complaining, and then there's b****ing just to b****. He says he doesn't like that the Sox don't take enough guys with good 'stuff', yet they've drafted Gio and Honel? Then he calls McCarthy, a 17th round pick of a couple of years ago (right?), a bust? I'm sorry, that's just b****ing just to b****, IMO.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:30 AM) His curve was good, but his fastball was nowhere near above average. Remember, McCarthy was also supposed to have a lights-out curveball. I've seen Honel pitch quite a few times in high school, and never was overly impressed. Whatever. I'll trust Chisoxfn's judgement over yours... BTW, you're judging McCarthy off of about five starts. Saying he's a bust already? He's clearly not ready, but that's going too far.

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:26 AM) Honel had great stuff? He has a pretty average fastball (91 mph) and a curve. Reminds me of a certain pitcher we have on the mound. GMAFB. Talk to Jason, he's seen him. He had a filthy knucklecurve before his injury. Average my ass...

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:22 AM) Every team finds some gems in the mid to late rounds of the draft. There's no doubt in my mind that the Sox have had some awful high draft picks lately. Honel has been a bust, plain and simple. Fields hasn't shown the type of offensive skills that Sox officials had hoped he would, and Royce Ring was a poor selection (other guys available that should have been taken). Fine. Hindsight is 20/20. You couldn't predict the Honel injury, no one could. You complained about the Sox not taking guys with good stuff. Honel had awesome stuff before his injury. So, what's your complaint? About the pick, or about them not taking guys with good stuff? Fields was the best power potential hitter in the draft, and he was available at the mid-first round. I didn't quite follow the draft that year, but my brother did, and he didn't seem real pissed about the selection. I tend to trust his judgement, so I didn't make a big deal about it. He was, however, pissed about the Ring selection. TAKE JOE f***ING BLANTON. Gosh, rewind to that draft... BTW, B-Mac apparently has enough to fool hitters, or else he'd not have been K'ing 9+ per 9 IP at Charlotte. BTW -- all of that being said, I don't think he's ready for the show. I realize he's pitching in a tiny park, but I'd like to see him keep the ball down a little more, and work on a two-seam fastball before he gets moved up. He's being rushed. Ugh, Hawk, get off of Williams' nuts. We haven't made the playoffs quite yet...

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:16 AM) No, definitely not Carrillo. I think the Broadway selection was better than either of the local pitchers, but it doesn't mean I think any of the 3 will pan out. None of them have particularly good stuff. Well, I think it's pretty ridiculous of you to criticize the Sox drafting tecniques. McCarthy was what, a 17th round pick? The fact that he's in our rotation already should be a compliment to Dave Wilder and co. Gio Gonzalez last year, Kris Honel a couple of years ago... I don't know what you're complaining about. Finding a college pitcher in spots #15-#20 with dynomite stuff is pretty tough to do. He's usually gone well before then...

QUOTE(fathom @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 02:14 AM) Because we don't seem to draft guys with good stuff. For some reason, we're content with drafting guys who only have two pitches, and can't throw over 91 mph. That's my biggest concern with Broadway. So, who should we have taken at #15? Don't say Carrillo, either...

BTW, Detroit's top prospect Justin Verlander came up and threw five and a third innings giving up four runs. So, it's not just our top prospects coming up and getting hit around.

Sorry to hear that, Critic.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Jul 5, 2005 -> 12:18 AM) Make it .423, with another HR. (not off Schilling though) He can't play OF though -- and that's what really matters... :rolly Alright, I have a question. Who are this year's draftees that I should be looking at/for in the box scores, other than the obvious ones like Broadway? I've been watching what Cunningham has been doing, and Getz -- and, I think the other kid's name is Cortez? Anyone else I should really keep my eye on?

He's slinging it up there at 98-99. Showing a good fastball and a decent two-seamer, decent movement -- not a whole lot of movement on his four-seamer though, but I suppose you can get away with that (a little bit) if you're throwing 98-99. Hasn't shown a breaking pitch yet. Threw a curveball once, in the dirt. Does he throw a slider too? EDIT: He is getting hit hard though. 2-0 Cleveland in the first. Kind of sucks to have your debut against Cleveland, huh? Reminds me of Felix Diaz, and one of his first starts in the majors, in a rain-delayed game against Baltimore...

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jul 4, 2005 -> 09:10 PM) If he's a sinkerballer it's probably a better sign if he's not striking out a ton of guys. The more balls in play, the better chance for a higher BAPIP. It's good to know that his sinker is working, but I'd rather have him K more guys to know that they really don't know/recognize what he's throwing...

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Jul 4, 2005 -> 07:12 PM) The style of play became less defensive and more based on scoring, and took away the subleties that made Hockey a unique sport. More rules, less strategy, more scoring, less interest. Are you kidding? The problem with the game is that there is too little scoring because of all the clutching and grabbing going on, and the refs not calling it. Yep... you know a hell of a lot about hockey -- keep saying f*** hockey. :rolly Look, don't give me the, "this is a message board and I'm free to say whatever I want" garbage. Yeah, that's fine, but this isn't your roadside to leave your s*** on. People pay for this site, and it'd be nice to have some good conversation rather than "f*** hockey" -- and then you say that too much scoring is the problem in the NHL? Oh my goodness...

QUOTE(MnSoxFan @ Jul 4, 2005 -> 06:26 PM) Pitching is not about strike outs. Didn't say it was. But since I rarely get to see these guys pitch, all I really get to look at are the stats; and generally, a better K/9 means you're doing a better job fooling the hitters. It's not that his K/9 is really low -- but it not being really high, combined with his walks, has me concerned. I'll back off, 'cause I'm not gonna act like an expert when I'm clearly not -- I'm just saying I'd like to see that number go up a little bit.

I thought Tracey had better 'stuff' than he's showing. I realize the walk total is always gonna be high (almost a half a walk per inning), but only 68K's in 97 IP? That's not very encouraging...