SkokieSox

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 11:22 PM) Not possible, there's no way you'd beat me. I'd buy it for you if you took that sig down.

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 11:34 PM) Right now something that KW talked about that I am really worried about is bringing Juan Uribe back. He thinks that's just because he has so much offensive potential, it's ok that his OPS has decreased over the past 3 seasons? He'd had a down year defensively, and I can't understand why you would want to pay $5M for someone with a terrible OBP and a high propensity to strike and can only hit around .230. Because we don't know what our options are going to be. Are you going to drop his option during the last game of the season only to find out Eckstein wants 3 years $45 million. **** that, I'd gladly bring Uribe back. Not that that is going to be the likely scenerio, but he has to leave open the possibility of Uribe being an option.

"It's our last bit of housecleaning before we started the offseason." That sounds as official of a response that we've had that Garland is as good as gone.

QUOTE(fathom @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 03:42 PM) Yep, and when the economics don't match for any player that actually makes 10 million or more, we'll hear how they looked into it, but it wasn't a good fit. There's many players on this team making more than $10 million. I don't that's the ceiling they're looking at if the player can produce.

I didn't feel that's what he was referring to, but it leaves the door open for anything.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 03:43 AM) I don't think the baggage is that warranted, but he's perceived as a malcontent (his comments re: the Toby Hall signing support that). The reputation exists regardless if it's deserved. AJ is the most hated player (by other players) in baseball. The pool of teams willing to acquire AJ is extremely limited, just like those for Bradley. His tradability is not an asset. Yet players like Bradley and AJ continue to find teams willing to take him. Maybe he doesn't bring in a top pitching prospect in return, but teams are always interested in helping their clubs, and both those players are able to do so for a number of teams.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 02:57 AM) Yeah, a team that starts the year with Podsednik and Erstad as starters should've been winning. NOBODY saw the years that they actually had coming. Just a big ole mystery. Maybe we should try it again in 2008. Get over yourself, the team looked promising. Maybe not locks to win the division, but certainly not as horrid as it turned out. Besides, it's not as if Erstad was a virtual lock, the rooks were in position to win a spot if they could have performed. Also, Pods was an every year type player, producing well in those opposite years. His past trend told he would have performed this year if he could have stayed healthy. Unfortunately he couldn't.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 02:54 AM) Podsednik can play RF and CF? Or LF for that matter? Why torture us anymore? Owens can do anything Podsednik can do, and for cheaper. Agreed, Pods is gone and Owens could certainly replace what he brought to the table the last two seasons, and most likely improve based on staying healthy alone. Erstad may be a good option to bring back though, as he can play all the OF spots as well as a great defensive 1B. The stick isn't quite there, but he does give depth. I like him for a reserve role, and in case of injury.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 02:47 AM) Finish poorly? No, I want them to do what they've done all year. This is a team that's starting Podsednik and Erstad -- they shouldn't be winning. Why not, they should have been winning the whole time, maybe its now somewhat clicking for them. Not every team meshes like the 05 team. Maybe now they're feeling comfortable with each other, and that can be carried into next season. I've never thought I'd have to defend winning... I don't see why we have to view this as a bad thing.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 02:42 AM) I don't expect them to lay down, I expect(ed) Guillen to place in the scrubs and naturally lose. That'd mean more time for Cintron, Gonzalez, Erstad and Lucy. f*** the fans, anyways. As a whole their idiots and probably look at a successful offseason as bringing back Aaron Rowand. No, being in the Top 10 does not give us exclusive rights to pick up tremendous players; but it sure doesn't help much selecting 10th when the players we've anticipated to fall aren't available. Hard to believe a generational talent such as Pedro Alvarez will be available at 10. Alex Rodriguez, Ken Griffey Jr. and Joe Mauer sure didn't make it that far. So... Never mind, it doesn't seem worth it to respond to this.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 02:40 AM) Why is this constantly brought up? Can you find a spot where someone said they want the players to lay down and play like s***? I haven't seen that. It's just frustrating that a team that is clearly better than us NOW loses to us. I mean, come on, twice this week -- we beat Santana and Buehrle? I don't want Sox players to do bad, but wins mean nothing at this point. We all want meaningful guys to do well -- Fields, Richar probably the biggest two but there's others -- but it still sucks. One spot will almost definitely make a difference, because it is, you know, the Sox. So you're saying you don't want the players to give up, you just want them to finish poorly for a draft pick? You should hold up a sign at the ball park saying "Try hard, but suck!". Bet it gets you on tv...

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Sep 30, 2007 -> 01:52 AM) If we miss a future HOF by one slot in the draft, just remember nights such as tonight. One useless victory after another this last week. Come on, you expect them to lay down and just play like s*** for a draft pick? You do that, and that's exactly what you become, s***. One pick, whatever... Besides, what about the fans going to the games, are they supposed to just go in knowing the teams laying down after paying good money. It's stupid, they should play to win and set some momentum for next year. Besides, the draft has show the potential for acquiring a HOF can occur at any spot in the draft. Being in the top ten will not negate us having the opportunity to pick up a high ceiling player.

35... The guy has really torn it up this month.

QUOTE(ChiSox_Sonix @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 02:48 AM) You should give half to whoever/whatever lit the fire under his ass the past few weeks Was it you?

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 02:34 AM) well, nice bet dude Best part about it is two other future's bets are panning out so far as well in the same day. Maddux 13.5 wins over 180 to win 150 Phillies win division 257 to win 514 I lost a bet on the Sox winning over 87.5 games, but all in all it was a very successful wagering season with the day to day amounts leading the charge for me.

QUOTE(Shadows @ Sep 20, 2007 -> 03:46 AM) I think its safe to say you lost $500 Mooohahahahaha....

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Sep 29, 2007 -> 02:34 AM) well, nice bet dude Thanks man - I'm happy.

QUOTE(WHITESOXRANDY @ Sep 28, 2007 -> 01:47 PM) The grading thread got me to thinking, since I give KW an "F" for this season, how many of us would be clamoring for his firing if the Sox hadn't won the WS in 2005 ? I know that's why I give him a pass. I like KW and think he's a pretty good GM but certainly not in the top ten - maybe in the top half. I think that he's still learning on the job and I'm surprised at some of the lessons he hadn't learned before this season. So, would you want him fired if the Sox had missed the playoffs in 2005 ? What if they lost in the playoffs that year ? What if they lost in the WS ? Do you still want him replaced ? Do you think that he's one of the best GM's ? Wonder if he has won 5 WS in a row, would you still feel the same? Hypotheticals are worthless, reality is what counts. He did a WS, and for that, he deserves the good that comes with it, just like he deserves the bad for this season. Either way, he's aggressive, and I like that.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 09:09 PM) Thome produces big time at the beginning of the season in 06, and he's unclutch because he didn't produce as much down the stretch. Thome gets hot down the stretch in 07, and he's unclutch because he got hurt at the beginning of the season. Exactly - until the guy hits 74 homeruns in a season, he's a detriment to this team. lol

QUOTE(Colorado Sox Fan @ Sep 27, 2007 -> 07:11 PM) Woopdee dang doodle. We needed these in June. But they wouldn't have happened because the games actually meant something. We're all frustrated, but let it go, Thome has produced when it has counted time and time again in his career. This dismal season isn't squarely on his shoulders...

One more to go...

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Sep 25, 2007 -> 12:45 AM) I'm not even getting into the "should it be debated" or "CHRIS YOUNG!" portion. I just don't believe that we would be going, "HEY, KW SHUD HAVE TR8ED FOR JAVY!" if we hadn't traded for him. Why would we? People don't often do that, especially not coming off a Series with a "bright future" ahead of them and McCarthy waiting and all that. Especially since he wasn't THAT hot last year, in totality, and who knows what he would've done in another city if we hadn't gotten him. Seems like a huge stretch to say, "We'd be mad about not getting Javy!" Right. Who cares what people would have said if we hadn't traded for him, the point is we did, and the team is better for it.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 23, 2007 -> 07:46 PM) Teams that buy on what a player is doing "right now" and fail to see the projectability of young players with track records of improvement are destined to fail. What are you talking about, Vazquez is not old, he's 31. In this case the Sox were able to get someone that could help them now and later, versus just later. Pitching is the more important piece for a team that is trying to win now and in the future.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 23, 2007 -> 07:14 PM) Let's compare.... How many above average pitchers are available at a salary of $11M/yr? Probably none, but you can get close. Or at least catch lightning in a bottle. How many projectable CFers are available at a salary of $500K? None. And Young's salary over the next 5 seasons will be less than what it takes to sign Hunter or Jones for 1 season. That's value. Value is subjective, and again with the FA pitching market and abundance of CF's available, I'd have to say Vazquez still has more value. Teams don't want to catch lightning in a bottle with pitching when they have a guy at the same price virtually a lock for 200 innings and the same for K's. In fact, they probably still would need to for the spots further down in the rotation besides the addition of Vazquez. So many teams have question marks after the third spot and in some cases the second spot. If I'm a GM with a suspect rotation, I'm probably trying to catch my lightning in a bottle with the CF spot. Besides, let's not pencil Young as an All Star just yet. The average and OBP need major improving before that title is earned. Will he develop that part of his game, I'm sure, but Vazquez is getting it done now, and not many teams would pass on the opportunity to acquire him.

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Sep 23, 2007 -> 06:59 PM) You're wrong. 5 more years of improvement under a suppressed salary makes Young a far more valuable commodity on the trade market. Not with this FA pitching market.