CWSGuy406

Am I seeing this correctly on Gameday? Intentionally walking Sean Casey? Mercy...

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 01:01 AM) You've got balls of steel, man. You made a couple of irrelevant red herring cracks and you're coming after me for giving the same type of irrelevant crack to you? As if you hadn't said anything? My my my. Where are my irrelevant red herring cracks? Can you point them out to me? Honestly -- if you point them out to me, I'll admit (something) I said was red herring if something is clearly and obviously. Do you feel my comment about your HoF pitchers was red herring? I defended why I thought it was 'in play' -- perhaps you disagree? No, you're right -- they called for a curveball in the exact same spot two times in a row. Definitely a curve. Weakly and soft? 85 qualifies as "weakly and soft"? s*** man, you're right -- definitely a curve.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:47 AM) Buy a better jersey than a Borchard jersey and then we'll talk. Nice red herring -- figures, can't debate the topic at hand, so go to something else. This is also the second time you've brought up the Borchard jersey, which has what to do with what? Your purpose in bringing it up has what, exactly, to do with this (or any, really?) topic? Oh, right, absolutely nothing. And I've heard much worse than you could type on your keyboard. If you could come up with something clever, I might actually laugh, but -- IlliniKrush, Tony, SnB and Rowand all have you beat in the "Keith's Borchard Jersey!!!!" joke. Cheapshots? What cheapshots? I've never agreed with much of your pitching "analysis", starting with your comments about B-Mac and continuing with your (ludicrous) comments about David Wells and Jamie Moyer being Hall of Famers. It has to do with pitching and my disagreement of your analysis, so I don't see what I said as a "cheapshot". of course, you've got all the VORP in the world Two red herrings in one post? Well done, Tiger! I know what Floyd was throwing because I know what a curveball looks like, and that wasn't a curveball. But apparently curveballs move in towards right-handed hitters and come in at 85 -- thanks, you're just dropping knowledge left and right, Gregory! If you had any clue whatsoever, you'd realize that a couple pages back I more or less agreed with your statements about how he was pitching tonight, but at this point, it's gone beyond that, Tiger.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:40 AM) I'll take your criticisms to heart when you can comprehend what player I'm criticizing at what point in time. And I'll take your deep and heavy pitching analysis to heart when you learn what a curveball is, or what a HoF pitcher is.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:33 AM) And give me a break. No one cares who you criticize - its that you criticize non-existent or marginal things to justify your already-existing biases, even when the current evidence is to the contrary. Is that more clear for you? No, he's just providing some fantastic pitching analysis. You can't see that he only throws one good curveball for every 20 he tosses to the plate? No biases, just superb pitching analysis, tiger.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:30 AM) You know, I wasn't even talking about how he sucks by saying "He sucks." No, instead you call him "tiger" -- which I find funny, since he's about seven (?) years older than you -- and say he throws a curveball when it was clearly not a curveball. Fantastic analysis there, "Tiger"! Hah -- and you get upset when people single you out.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:20 AM) The opposite to that is he's living in some people's living rooms and paying most of the rent around here because he's been oh-so-bad in the last 100+ innings and through this season but if he does good, he's just fulfilling "potential" and when he does bad it's just...what? Luck? A fluke? I don't know. Ozzie, maybe. Ozzie being bad to the young player. Find for me the place where Tony or I -- the main people of this debate -- have said Floyd would be a good pitcher. We've said this: there's absolutely NOTHING to lose by pitching him with the Sox the rest of the season. See if it works out, he has nothing left to prove at AAA. You have responded with: No, he sucks -- you can't see that already? And we go 'round in a circle. "And the beat goes on..."

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:13 AM) Floyd has crossed over to the "bad lands" with some here. He just can't win with some, and I swear if he won a Cy Young, it would just be a lucky year to some people. I am not going to comment on tonight because I can only follow on Gameday, but pretty amazing comments for a guy with 4 K's in 3+ innings so far, no ER. His fastball has been a little better tonight -- consistently 91-94 on the FSN Detroit gun -- but his control (within the zone) has been a wee bit irratic. What he seems to be doing nicely tonight is changing speeds, although I can't tell if that's something he's actually trying to do or if it's just 'luck'.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 6, 2007 -> 12:01 AM) Listen Tiger, he's not Blyleven throwing a curveball Listen Tiger, if it was a curveball you might have a point. He threw a curveball the pitch before. The pitch he got Rayburn out on wasn't a curveball, unless Floyd's curveball now comes in at 85 MPH.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 11:51 PM) Not to crap all over Floyd Why even say that? That's exactly what you do (and did).

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 04:43 PM) Assuming, of course, no improvement from a rookie campaign to a 2nd year campaign. Fields could improve next season yet still see his HR/PA fall a bit. That would mainly come from getting that OBP from the .292 it's at now to a more respectable .320-.330. I assume this would mean his batting average would rise a bit and he'd walk a bit more, but his power may fall (not significantly -- he should hit 25-35 quite easily).

Copied from last night's game-thread because I don't want it to get buried there. QUOTE(hitlesswonder @ Sep 5, 2007 -> 02:14 AM) When all is said done, I think the 2006 Sox might look like a significantly better team than 2007 DET. Sort of surprising. The first half of 2006 might be the best I've ever seen any White Sox team play. I know the pitching was mediocre but the offense was an absolute buzzsaw. I know in some sense 2006 has to be seen as a failure, but if not for some circumstances of historic proportions (talking about Minnesota here, getting the "perfect storm" of second half excellence from Mauer, Morneau, Santana and for a short time Liriano), that team would've been playoff bound. Speaking of which, that would've been quite interesting if the Sox did make the playoffs last season. There would be no way Ozzie could start Contreras OR Buehrle in either of the first two games. In fact, I wouldn't have either in the top three -- Vazquez probably would've been my game one starter, followed by Garland or Garcia, depending on whether the series was home or away.

So I hedged my bets and put money on Cleveland and San Diego to win the Series tonight, as they were the best combinations of odds + overall talent. You guys shall now witness my luck firsthand, as somehow, someway, neither Cleveland or the Padres will even make the playoffs.

QUOTE(michelangelosmonkey @ Sep 4, 2007 -> 08:41 PM) Still...from your list of number ones overall you have 3 stars out of 12. PLus a couple of good players. I'd put post 2002 in the "unproven" box. Then you have: Joe Mauer career OPS .854 Wait, Joe Mauer isn't a star? Apparently great defensive catchers with career .394 OBPs are growing on trees these days...

I'm really getting ancy, as I'm sure just about everybody who has posted about the Blackhawks is as well (or, in Tony's case, has actually already posted the exact same thing). I can picture opening night with the UC rockin' -- Havlat/Toews/Ruutu Seabrook/Keith (yeah, Toews probably won't be on the first line, but don't f*** with my dreams dammit!) standing together in the red Indianheads. That's going to be one exciting night.

So as I was rolling around in bed last night in my 85 degree (at least -- it's probably closer to 90) dorm room, I was thinking that Kenny Williams has to do something extremely drastic this winter to 'save' the Sox. And the one thing I kept coming back to was trading Konerko. After this season, Konerko is on board for three years, $36 million (I believe that's correct). He's going to be coming off of his 4th straight 30+ homer season (three more to go this year), yet I have a hunch that this year might be the first of Konerko's slow decline (he turns 32 in March). I tend to believe that Konerko's perceived value (30 HR - 100 RBI guy, veteran presence, proven playoff guy, clubhouse leader) is greater than his "on-field" value (for example -- Konerko leads Casey Kotchman in HRs by about 18 yet still trails Kotch in OPS+. I also tend to believe people overrate Konerko's defense -- he can pick 'em out of the dirt as well as anyone, but his range is non-existant and isn't going to get better). Off the top of my head, both LA teams and Baltimore are in need of a first baseman. There's a couple other teams out there as well (Texas, New York) who could feasibly put in a bid, but I think the former three make more sense. I've said plenty of times that my ideal scenario would be a trade with Anahiem where we're getting Kotchman and another player in return (Figgins? Willits? Santana?), but I also believe you could work it out with the Dodgers or the Orioles (for a package centered around Furcal or Tejada -- that would even out salaries for 2008). Kenny needs to go back to being the guy that was made fun of in Moneyball -- the GM who is willing to go out on a limb. I guess to a certain extent he did that this past winter, but I think he needs to trade Konerko, Contreras and Garland for the best available packages. I know the problem with dealing Konerko is that it's automatically going to be taken as "the Sox are officially rebuilding." But I don't think it has to be that way. If by chance you got that Kotchman and Figgins for Konerko deal, it would allow you to go after Hunter/Jones/Rowand. From there, I'd look to find my SS of next season (and hopefully beyond) in Garland's or Contreras' return. That would leave you with a lineup of (this needs some tinkering, BTW): C - Pierzynski 1B - Kotchman 2B - Richar/Figgins 3B - Crede/Figgins SS - ______________ DH - Thome LF - Fields/Figgins CF - Hunter/Jones/Rowand (If it were up to me, A-Jones) RF - Dye Comparing this offense to the 2007 offense, you are improved at three spots (LF, CF, SS) -- you're probably improved at 3B and 2B. The dropoff in production at first-base is minimal. A lot still rests on how healthy Dye and Thome can stay, but I don't see anything that can rectify that in the next couple months.

Not that FSU deserved to win, but they got jobbed on that last call. His right foot came down in bounds and his left foot (toe) hits the out-of-bounds line, rendering the hit (and consequential fumble) meaningless. And even if they called it incomplete, the person running the clock was in no hurry to get that thing to 0:00.

Anybody know when the Hawks open up training camp? Also, somebody wanna pin this thread?

Jason pulling out the X-Box 360. Don't know if I like that... And as far as Konerko, if the Angels would do Kotchman + Santana/Willits/Figgins (one of the three) for him AND take on all/most of his contract, I'd drive PK to the airport.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 10:20 PM) Anyone know if Gavin is going to make another start this season? You'd think he'd at least earn one more start after his quality outing last time. The best answer to your question can be found in this post at SSS -- it's a quote from Coop: So it's going to be a giant clusterf*** to October 1st, as Jon Stewart might put it.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan99 @ Sep 3, 2007 -> 10:11 PM) The NL Central is an absolute joke. Two divisions per league and we don't have this problem. Two division winners with two wildcards is something I'd love to see. If there were two divisions this year, you'd have the Mets, Padres and D'Backs as locks and one helluva race between eight(ish) teams for the last WC spot.

- Kudos to Egbert for finishing the season on a good note -- 11 groundouts today. Well done. - Another kudos to Haeger for bouncing back after a real rough first half. I still don't want the Sox counting on him for the fifth starter spot, bu I also don't want the Sox to give him away for nothing. Among our other 24 year old (or around there) guys like Floyd, Vasquez, Sisco, Aardsma, Perez and to a lesser extent Phillips, I hope Haeger is given a shot to make next year's bullpen. - I want to believe that Getz has a future as our SS, but that slugging percentage is appaulingly low. At the very least, however, it ensures that we'll have yet another mediocre bench player capable of playing the middle infield (Bour..., Gonzalez).

FWIW, I believe Eckstein was rated average defensively according to UZR. It'll be interesting to see what comes up on Tango's Fan Scouting Report which he's conducting right about now. I really wouldn't mind Eckstein for one year, but I doubt the Sox could get him for a year. If the Sox could grab Eckstein on a one-year deal, I'd look at not picking up Uribe's option but still keep him on board in more of a super-sub role (think 2004). But even if the Sox did sign Eckstein on the ideal one year deal, it's still -- as a poster at SSS put it -- "putting a bandaid over a gaping chest wound". They need to find an option, even if it's a player like Richar (not Richar himself) -- in other words, a player who they're not 100% in, but could still give him a season to see if he can establish himself.

Why is Ronnie Brown going to split carries with their second running back (according to Yahoo)? That strikes me as absolutely ridiculous, as they're making it sound like the carries are going to be 50/50. I ask because I was thinking of making a play on Ronnie Brown's 50-to-1 odds of rushing for the most yards in the NFL this season, but if he's going to be splitting carries, there's no use in even bothering.

"Red Rising" appears to be the new slogan. I dig...