CWSGuy406

QUOTE(SEALgep @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 09:57 PM) Was it written in green, or do I know the writer personally or something? You really need to learn how to communicate sarcasm. Supernuke's post looked to be -- quite clearly, might I add -- sarcasm. If you need green to distinguish that, I think WSI can use more people who bow at any and every decision the White Sox make.

QUOTE(fathom @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 07:43 PM) No, holding your opposition to 1 or 2 runs was the reason we were winning. Also, having a bullpen that was pretty much a guarantee to hold on to a win from the 7th inning on helped a lot also. Now, I'm not saying we can't have a terrific bullpen again...but we're a far way from that right now. I can't believe that there are still so many people who are absolutely clueless about the 2005 season. People really just love eating up anything Mark Gonzalez and Hawk are willing to tell them, don't they?

DA is completely right about Anderson being jerked around in 2006. He sucked in the first half at the plate but was still playing a fantastic center field defensively. Second half rolls around, Anderson starts to hit the ball a bit, and he's being jerked in and out of the lineup while Rob Mackowiak is routinely -- and for anyone watching, 'routinely' is not even close to an exaggeration -- losing games for the Sox. Not that it's Mackowiak's fault, BTW -- he said in the press that he's not a CFer and pretty much wasn't prepared to play CF. So Ozzie is now hurting the team to what, prove a point? Oh puh-lease, give me a f***ing break with this useless hyperbole. Those who defend Anderson have never made him out to be a saint. Yes, he's a young ballplayer with an apparent attitude problem, God forbid! I'm sure that's a first, right? But instead of trying to work through that, this organization screwed things up and compounded the mistake by bringing in Erstad who (predictably) got hurt. And we sit here today not knowing whether is an BA attitude problem child who can play the game at least as an average CFer (see his second half of 2006) or if he's just an attitude problem who sucks. Nope, instead we brought in Darin Erstad, the guy whose balls were massaged by every f***ing person within the organization, every f***ing White Sox beat writer in the city, and he -- quite predictably, might I add -- not only sucked, but got hurt. But at least he did a good job of cheerleading and grinding in the clubhouse, right? I guess the Sox see that as money well spent.

Anyone else see American Gangsters last night? One of the first scenes has Russell Crowe (sp?) walking out of a taxi towards the camera, talking to his friend and I'm thinking, "wow, there's not a chance in hell I can believe Crowe playing a Harlem cop." But I didn't think about it the rest of the movie, so I guess in my mind he was playing the part reasonably well. I liked the movie a lot, BTW.

Our top recruit Trevor Mbakwe is out for the season. Awesome news...

FWIW, according to a (respected) poster at SouthSideSox, Bill James' Handbook apparently has Jerry Owens pegged for a .274/.340/.340 line in 2008. If I could be guaranteed right now that Owens would give the Sox that, I don't think I'd completely mind that in CF -- going with some quazi platoon with both Anderson and Owens getting CF at-bats. Of course, if this were the case, I still don't think the Sox would compete -- and that's not a knock on Owens (or whoever plays CF next year, really) but more indicative of the rest of the roster. There's one 'star' player offensively, the rest figure to be (adjusting for position) anywhere from slightly above average to well below average.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 08:00 PM) I can't seem to see through the rose colored glasses because they have been stomped on and ground into the dirt for so long. I understand the 'bitterness' (that's not the word I want to use here, but I'm gonna go with it), but as we sit here, this situation is COMPLETELY different from any the Hawks have expierenced in... well, ever really -- I think. When was the last time that the Hawks had two players THIS good, THIS young on their team? I know that 90s group was touted, but it would be very difficult for me to believe that the combined hype of Roenick and Amonte amounted to half as much hype as that surrounding Toews and Kane. And at this point, can we even call it hype? These kids are PPG players already -- 18 and 19 years old and they're completely dominating. I also think it's completely unfair for you to associate Bill Wirtz with Rocky. If you've paid attention to anything Hawks since the father's death, you'd've noticed that Rocky is initiating change and he's initiating it quickly, from little things like TVs being added into the locker rooms at Rockford to getting home games IN HIGH DEF on TV for Comcast, despite the fact that Comcast (most likely) has had a schedule set for a year. I know the 'average Chicago Joe' thought is to think "the Hawks are f***ing their fans over", but things are clearly changing. As such, I completely agree with Krush and saw your first post as unneccessary. I really didn't even understand what it meant, either... we're celebrating the greatness of these kids, the greatness that is the Hawks FINALLY turning things around, and in comes the usual cliche (at this point, the "hockey sux!" and "who are the Hawks?" type posts have come cliche and stupid) post.

I'm interested in everyone thoughts, and this is a question that I expect may generate some discussion: You have a gun pointed to your head and you're forced to keep just one of Toews and Kane. After sobbing mercilessly for 24 hours, you choose...? I'm going to have to think about it myself for a bit before I answer.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 03:03 AM) Than swing Contreras for something and stick it out with Garland (and just reap the draft picks and hope he pitches his ass off and you can actually come to terms with him). Here are the Elias rankings for free agent compensation: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/al...-complete_N.htm Garland grades out as a 'B' this year, despite the fact that he had a pretty good ERA and a pretty good ERA+. The only way for him to get 'A' status is if he repeats his 2005 season, and I'd bet highly against that happening. Because of this, I don't think there should be any question whether the Sox trade Garland. You let him pitch this whole season, don't resign him and all you're going to come away with is a second round pick? That can't happen, and if Kenny allows it to happen, it would probably be the biggest f***-up in his tenure. Some team out there will be willing to give up something decent for Garland -- Kenny has to find the right deal and he's gotta be right (in other words, the players he gets back have to pan out) on the deal. Hell, I don't even know if resigning him is an acceptable option. If you resign him, you're basically saying you don't have faith in the group of minor league arms you've assembled (Haeger, Egbert, Gio, Danks and to a lesser extent DLS). I have to think there's a package out there that's slightly better than what we got for Garcia (a B prospect like Gio plus something more useful than Floyd). If Kenny trades Garland for a package centered around a/several reliever(s), I will have completely lost faith in him and will start calling for his head. This is a make-or-break winter for this franchise. If Kenny trades prospects for 30 year olds, you can kiss the playoffs goodbye for the next five-ten years.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 03:40 PM) The Trib mentions Hunter and Eckstein as well, but goes further into other SS possibilities (they don't seem as convinced of the Eckstein thing). Names they mention for Sox SS targets: Cesar Izturis, Jack Wilson, Luis Castillo and Kaz Matsui. If the Sox acquired Cesar Izturis, I'd quit life. Is he going to be the Shea Hillenbrand for the next couple years, absolutely useless player who somehow latches on to team after team?

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Nov 1, 2007 -> 05:33 AM) Hallelujah, holy s***, where's the Tylenolvodka? Fixed. This team coughs up leads as quickly as they come back from two-three goal deficits. I think we all said at the beginning of the season, win or lose, that this team would be exciting. That has certainly held true.

Also, some great passes tonight first by Ruutu on the Toews goal and Lang on Williams' first. And wtf am I talking about "rocket wrister on [Toews'] goal". He scored that one on the doorstep, I don't know what I was getting at there. He does have a rocket wrister, though. One more thing... from what I saw the refs were a whole lot of ass tonight. That tripping call on Seabrook was a f***ing joke.

Woohoo! Kane + Toews make me smile. Rocket wrister by Toews on his goal. Kudos to Williams for stepping up -- he's played very well since being paired with Lang. Losing streak over, time to rattle off a couple in a row.

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 06:35 PM) Are you serious? Why risk it? Because he's going to be the cheapest out of Hunter/Rowand/Jones. Because he's still a rock defensively and isn't, in fact, over the hill. As far as risk, you carry the same risk in trading Chris Carter for Coco Crisp (not that you or I, for that matter, were advocating doing that). A suspension like this isn't going to deter me, but I'm sure this will knock down Cameron's contract a good 10-20%. I'd try and take advantage of that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) Until he tests positive again, and gets a 50 day suspension. So that's a guarantee?

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 04:56 PM) Also, any online link? I'm curious if this is just spit-balling. Phil Rogers also mentioned it a couple days ago. Carter is probably a fair price to pay for Crisp, but if that's the deal I wouldn't be too fond of it. I know Kenny wants 2008 to be a 'contending' season, but he can't be trading away the top prospects in this system -- regardless of where these guys would rank in other systems -- for players who aren't very-good-to-great. Crisp isn't one of those players. And that's not a bash on Crisp at all. In fact, I'd love to see the Sox go after them, but it would have to be at a bargain price (say a non-Jenks reliever and a non-DLS/Carter/Gio/Egbert prospect, and I might even put Shelby in that group as well). And it would be tough for me to see Boston taking a deal where they're not getting a whole lot back. Our lack of production from the farm system is absolutely f***ing this team so hard right now. We can't afford to make the type of deal that Detroit just made with Atlanta. I'm not saying Detroit's farm system is phenomenal, but they can afford to give away that Hernandez kid with Maybin and Granderson already ahead of him. We can't do that. We trade Carter and we'll have ZERO power prospects at high-A or better. We trade Shelby and we'll have ZERO CF prospects above high-A or better. Our only real depth is starting pitching and even there it's not very great.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Oct 31, 2007 -> 04:10 PM) Well, he just cost himself a few million in free agency. I'd still sign him. Owens can have CF for the first month-and-a-half while we grab Cameron at a discounted price.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Oct 30, 2007 -> 08:32 PM) s***, I actually liked Anderson's comments. There appears to be a rather big communication issue within the organization. Anderson shouldn't have 'whined' about it to the press, but based on what has happened in the past, I'd tend to believe that Anderson hasn't been told a helluva lot so far this winter. FWIW, here's the rest of the quote that wasn't listed in this thread: They told him -- or, at the very least, Ozzie told the media and the fans -- that the guy who had the best spring training would get the OF job. It became evident by April 1st that that wasn't the case. Podsednik was handed the LF job for absolutely NO reason after 'healing up' all Spring Training and Erstad, while performing decently, was given CF despite not performing as well as BA. Again -- I'm not condoning how Anderson has gone about expressing himself over the past couple weeks/months, but I'd tend to guess there's another side to this story that we're not quite getting (the side BA has been hinting at).

QUOTE(Steve9347 @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 11:10 PM) well then. my bust, and my apologies. Yeah -- my bad if I was overly harsh in my post as well. Apparently I took my rough day of classes out on you there a bit.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Oct 30, 2007 -> 06:33 AM) I don't think a lot of people who have grown fond of guys like Gordon and Tyrus realize just how much we need and how much better the Bulls can be with a go-to superstar of Kobe's caliber and how much they overvalue the Bulls' depth. Yep, you're right on here. It's ridiculous -- when talking to the 'average' fan -- how much certain people overrate Ben Gordon. You also get the people who don't want to win with Kobe because he's a "bad guy" and all of these Bulls players are "good guys". Getting back on point, though, having Kobe on the floor would elevate do wonders to elevate the games of Deng and Hinrich. Deng isn't particularly quick, but I've noticed he's very good when he gets a kickout pass, he's good at finding the lane that is left when the defender is forced to close out quickly. He also seems to have developed a very good mid-range game which would (obviously) be key with Kobe. I'm getting very excited. I'm the first to say that I'm not one who you could call one of the bigger Bulls fans, but getting Kobe would change my whole perspective on the season and would definitely force me to keep a closer eye on them than if they didn't have him.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Oct 30, 2007 -> 05:04 AM) Furcal maybe a different story though, although he is coming off a down season, but both guys will be in contract years in 2008. You wouldn't trade Garland straight up for Hu but would (maybe) do it for Furcal? I'm just the opposite -- the Dodgers have very little leverage with Furcal right now, and getting Hu for Garland would be a great trade for Kenny.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Oct 30, 2007 -> 05:18 AM) As long as the Bulls keep Deng and Hinrich, they can trade the rest of the damn team for Kobe for all I care. Those 2 and Kobe beat out the Big 3 in Boston IMO when you consider how old all 3 of those guys are. Plus, the Bulls won't trade EVERYBODY and have the depth to still have some talent after a deal to go with the big 3. It hurts the depth at forward immensely, but if all it takes is Gordon, Noah, Thomas and a first, I'll drive the three guys to the airport myself. I know the Bulls' first rounders for the foreseeable future don't figure to be great picks, but if need be, the Bulls should be willing to throw in an extra first rounder or two if that's what it takes to get the deal done. If they make this deal, that will ensure my being at the Bradley Center this Saturday (which I know you all care about).

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Oct 30, 2007 -> 03:45 AM) He's very athletic and can get out and run and handle the ball, but is working on his shot, which will probably keep him around unlike Shumpert. Interesting. Sounds just like Dominic James, outside of the size difference. In any case it sounds like Marquette got a pretty decent one here. Maybe one day we'll pull in a decent big man. I can dream, right?

Marquette got a committ from a three-star recruit for next season, Tyshawn Taylor. He's a 'sizey' guard at 6"2 or 6"3. Apparently he had scholarship offers from G-Tech, Kansas and UNC, among others. Palehose -- were you following him at all? Know anything about him? The Marquette fans seem pretty excited, although I'm not sure if that's just more relief after Crean swung-and-missed on Swopshire (sp? Louisville commit) and Shumpert.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2007 -> 09:02 PM) The Tigers suddenly have very little need for ARod. A-Rod played SS with the Yankees...? Brandon Inge isn't going to factor into the decision on whether the Tigers to go after A-Rod.